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

I meant to type "fudge". So that statement was basically saying you know how to mount scopes?

The issue with your strike eagle, what if it occurred with 6 different strike eagles? What would the statistical probability be of getting 6 that malfunctioned? How many would need to be tested to be statistically valid? 50, 100, 1k?

Do you know of any optic company that tests rifle scopes for zero retention from impacts? As in mounting them to a rifle, shoot, impact, shoot? If so, who, if not why?

I’ve done various ‘quality engineering’ tasks in my career. A very high confidence level for a particular variable can be obtained by measuring that variable on 30 sample parts that are all produced using the exact same process, materials, tools, etc… However, the level of confidence needed (acceptance criteria) is established based on a lot of inputs (anticipated production/sales volume, acceptable deviation from nominal, severity of non-conformance, etc…). Not all brands will come up with the same acceptance criteria based on their business model.

Something to keep in mind is that any variable (dimension, material property, etc) that could result in a failure, like a shift in zero or tracking variance, has to be collected and monitored in order to ensure conformance. Usually, this is multiple characteristics on each individual part. In the case of a scope there would be multiple parts that could give similar failure modes. I note that to say that for lower volume brands, it may well be less costly to fix as fail, based on the customer’s feedback, rather than invest in the resources to develop detailed quality control plans and maintain them.

Yes, I know how to mount scopes, but the statement was meant to say that if someone wants to get a particular result it is very easy to do so with selective scope mounting. Frankly, it is a pretty straightforward thing and it is remarkable how many problems come from scope mounting. Yet, they do.

No scope company tests every scope that way. Every respectable company I can think of does that during the product development process many times. Hell, I've done it for a couple of them in the past. It ain't rocket science if you pay attention to consistency. Expensive scopes get some amount of individual evaluation, i.e. every scope gets looked at. As they become less expensive, companies do spot checks. For some larger companies, they will pull a scope from every lot and beat it up a little to see if there are systemic lot to lot variations.

How much testing is statistically significant is hard to say because lot to lot variation plays a role. Assuming manufacturing is consistent and expected failure rate is in the 1% to 4% range depending on the scope price and build quality, looking at 40-50 scopes should be reasonably indicative. More is, of course, better. Some of that can be short-circuited with accelerated wear testing. Some companies do it, but it is hard to say how many.

Here is the rub: most companies do not make enough scope to easily afford to go bang up 50 of them, so there is a lot of educated guessing and trusting the OEM happening.

Once the scope is out, a lot is learned from simply analyzing service department records. That's usually where we find the most statistically significant data on how different designs hold up under average use.


ILya

That's the strategy where the customer who bought the product also serves as the durability test function.

I'll take a guess that companies who use that strategy as a principle measure of quality/durability speak the loudest about their exceptional warranty/customer service policy in media ads.

Some companies DO have either in house or use test labs to validate their product. My comment above is not specifically aimed at optics companies.

With most companies I know, marketing people and service/repair people do not talk to each other very much. There are, of course, exceptions.

I recall a guy from one of the Instagram optics companies (Atibal, I think) telling me that all this product development product is a bunch of nonsense and he can get any product configuration to marker in 6 to 12 months: just tell the chinese what specs you want and they make it. Well, that explains his products.

Serious companies have serious engineering groups and serious quality departments.

ILya

koshkin, aside from Arken's apparent lack of interest in QC and CS, have you found their products to perform pretty well?

I'm pretty sure that Form makes the same sort of claim in his tests.

Hard to say. I have one here and it works well for the money. However, the failure rates on them seem to be so high that I do not know what to make of them. I know one Youtuber who received six different Arkens over the last couple of years and three had to go back for various problems. At every rimfire match, when I talk to the match director, they say that every match they run, one or two Arkens go down.
They get the look and feel right, but seem to need some work on the fundamentals.

For me, when I review a scope, I have to have reasonable faith that they make them consistently. I am sorta rooting for Arken to get it all worked out since I like what they are doing with the potential value proposition. Until I see some consistency, I'll be watching from the sidelines.

ILya

Thanks for the reply!

This has been very informative and makes sense to me from a practical level. I'm a scientist by training and statistics make sense sense to me, especially on this subject. There is no such thing as a zero failure rate. I've also long thought that some companies use buyers as their QA/QC department.

You mentioned a few mounts I've seen but not used - I'll have a look.

I hope we can keep this respectful and learn - and not turn this into an aggressive name-calling pissing match.

While not the scope you reference, I posted on this a while back with a pic or two so people could see the problem. When I took the scope apart, the erector tube had some nasty gouges where the turret pad contacted it. After I polished those out, the scope tracked repeatably and very close to the mfgs stated incrementals for adjustment.

Thanks for your participation.

Good shootin' -Al

I would like to echo the sentiments of bwinters. Very good thread. Thanks to the knowledgable contributors. Keep it going.

I've never found it a problem,to simply procure that which intrigues and flog upon same. If it connects dots,I buy more. Hint.








Not that the Fixture Fhuqkery and lack of Live Rounds,ain't funnier than fhuqk. Hint.

Just sayin'..................

Koshkin,
You say that most reputable brands do some sort of drop or impact test for zero retention. Shoot to verify baseline, drop or create impact of some sort, then shoot again to verify zero retention. I think that’s what you said. Are they actually doing this in a manner that imparts lateral force via side impacts? To mimic actual drops that might occur in the field? Or via some sort of machine that only mimics longitudinal force (recoil simulation)?

I haven’t seen much of the former (outside of Nightforce). I have seen plenty of the latter, and frankly it doesn’t mean much to me. Of course a scope should hold up to recoil as that’s the very job it was assigned to do. That’s a minimum level expectation. Holding up to recoil of hunting rounds, magnums included, is really nothing exceptional, imo. Please show me exceptional so that I know it will easily hold up to the routine. Of course I also expect the tires I buy to be round, hold air, and roll down the road too.

And if a scope is truly drop tested/torture tested in some manner, why isn’t that shown in marketing materials? Nightforce seems to be the only company that actually demonstrates their durability claims. Consequently, I own more NF scopes than any other brand, and they are on all of my most important hunting rifles.

As a hunter, durability is my #1 concern. I buy quality scopes that naturally have good glass. The glass nuances and subtleties on $1000+ scopes are mostly meaningless for most hunters. Why do marketing departments focus so much energy on stuff that matters less? Show us more of the torture testing and we’d probably buy a lot more of those scopes.

That's the thing - manufacturers like Leupold have a "trust me bro, our scopes are fine, you're just mounting them wrong" attitude, like the claims on their now defunct video. If they showed good testing we'd be more likely to believe the claims.
The thing with Form's tests is they might not have been statistically viable, but they often tended to reflect the results many of us were already seeing in the field with the exact scopes that were failing.
If someone has a better test, bring it on. In the meantime, we go with the data presented in the tests available to us.

Last NIB Reupold I bought. Hint.






Set aboard my 18lb+ Bart' barreled Vudoo at 50yds,with 20 Mil's in the erector,between shots. Hint.






Remounted it a coupla weeks later,for more laughs. 3-shot cluster with only zoom manipulations(swung stop to stop twice),the wild brace with 10 Mil's of erector between pokes. Hint.



As per always,when the Swiffer 5-20x HD FFP MQ LitBitch goes back on board,it's in the .2's. Hint.




Never not interesting,to extrapolate side by each,with Live Fire. Hint.



Just sayin'.................

This as an interesting 4 mins or so. Not really whacks but pressure on a scope.

You're preaching to the choir

Great thread, thank you for the information.

isn't big stick and ubber fan boy of Arken?

here is a leupold tracking test for your enjoyment.

This.

Cumsincowboys finds it disconcerting,that folks actually shoot rifles that exist,with Live Ammo. Hint.














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

shooting it more isn't going to fix your leupold little twig

Pardon wares that exist and Live Ammo. Hint.








Fortunately for you,Imagination and Pretend are free,so even YOU can "afford" to "contribute". Hint.

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

What brand of scopes do you prefer?

I do not have one brand that I prefer for everything. Each particular models stands on its own merits. I have a significant number of scopes at home and they rotate all the time. I am travelling at the moment, so I am not even going to try to remember them all. I tend to use higher end stuff for my own personal purposes when I am not testing something specific. I end up using quite a few Tangent and March scopes when left to my own devices, but I have a good assortment of riflescopes from Vortex, Tract, Burris, Primary Arms, Meopta, Trijicon, SwampFox, Athlon, SWFA, Element, Delta and likely a few others I am not thinking of at the moment.

ILya

Thanks for input

Kewl.

I have "wares the exist" plus "Live ammo".

I can even up the bid to real live video in hunting use.

Is that the Vortex paycheck talking? Lol

A "5 star facial" dumped on BS!

Exactly.

Pardon wares that exist. Hint.





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

I'd bet so...

Pardon wares that exist out in the field doing real work.

Stick's have virtual problems, or owner induced puking. Lol

He warranties his own throw away scopes by having a closet full.

Rent free in so many noggins.

Not that many, actually. It's the same four or five chihuahuas yapping at the ankles over and over.

Guess my questions got dodged?

Did I miss a question somewhere in there?

Yes, halfway down page 2.

He’a not going to answer that, because it’s a conflict of interest. It’s pretty apparent that most manufacturers don’t do any meaningful testing.

One doesn’t have to be an engineer to figure out that live fire testing is the only meaningful durability test for a riflescope.

That was my understanding too. But I believe Koshkin stated otherwise earlier in the thread, which I why I asked for clarification.

I missed this one earlier.

All the major manufacturers I have talked to in any sort of a detail do side impact tests in addition to the recoil test. Some have the equipment to do it. Some rig things up out of what they have. It is a tricky thing to do in a repeatable manner without fairly expensive equipment. I obviously have not talked to all of the riflescope manufacturers, so I can not tell if they all do it or do not do it. I have not done an exhaustive survey of that.

I am not aware of Nightforce demonstrating anything. They talk about it in their marketing literature and do an occasional publicity stunt or two. It is mostly nonsense, but it looks impressive and seems to be a successful marketing technique for them. It is hard to estimate exactly, but I suspect Nightforce spends more marketing money per scope than anyone else and it has worked well for them. They seem to be falling a little behind on product development at the moment. Hopefully, they will start releasing something new soon or they will Leupold themselves into a tricky situation.

Back when Nightforce was a fairly new company and they were working on NXS scopes, they did a significant amount of work with their OEM on enhancing the reliability of their designs. I think they were one of the first companies or the first to work that closely with the OEM during the design process. It is a good bit more common now. In many ways, Nightforce is probably responsible for how robust many of LOW's designs are. You can design for reliability and that acquired knowledge went into LOW's designs that they do for other customers as well.

None of the marketing departments show you any torture testing. Actual testing is a very different thing from marketing stunts. Why marketing departments of optics companies do or do not focus on certain aspects of their products is not a question I can answer. I do not do marketing for anyone and I have no clue how they make marketing decisions.

ILya

Interesting. If I were involved with marketing of a riflescope, I would beat on them, and show them holding zero. That would be the basis of my marketing campaign. If you don’t have durability and zero retention in a scope, nothing else matters. At least not to me.

Stunt or not, that NF video where they freeze the scope in a block of ice, shoot the scope with a shotgun, pound a big nail into a stump with it, and then put it back on the rifle and shoot is a powerful and convincing video. There’s also the video of the NF guy beating the scope on its side and putting it back on a collimator. Despite your claim of NF not demonstrating anything, that sure demonstrates something to me — that the manufacturer has confidence in their product. I’d love to see Swaro or Zeiss or Leica, for example, do something similar. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes. Pretty glass, questionable construction. It’s only reasonable to surmise that if a manufacturer were actually building demonstrably durable scopes, they would be marketing such. I’m in no position to question your knowledge of the industry, but as a consumer it’s hard to believe that everyone is impact testing, as you state.

It doesn’t have to be that elaborate, but I find it shocking that the vast majority of scope manufacturers show no demonstration of durability at all in their marketing materials. If, as you say, “All the major manufacturers I have talked to in any sort of a detail do side impact tests” yet they are not showing us, they are doing themselves a disservice as it creates a perception that they are doing nothing. Only Trijicon, NF and kinda March (that I am aware of) show or make any claim at all of performing any sort of impact testing. Their loss.

There may well be other videos from other companies out there but I saw this one a while back. Not sure if this procedure adequately tests the long-term durability of their scopes but if March does this to every scope they build and sell then that's something I guess.

https://marchscopes.com/news/15415/

I suppose that confirms my earlier statement that Nightforce's marketing is very effective.

ILya

It sure does.

Yes, but this is recoil testing. Not impact testing. Quite misleading. Recoil is not impact.

The fact that Nightforce does this to every scope that is manufactured before it it shipped out seems a bit above and beyond just a "publicity stunt".

Yes, that’s something. Which is why I listed March in the three I’m aware of that actually market the fact that they do some impact (not just recoil) testing. Some live fire testing included in that video would be helpful too, but that’s better than nothing - which is what I remain convinced is what most manufacturers are doing. I’d love to be convinced otherwise, but alas, despite claims to the contrary here, I remain skeptical.

Agreed!

No wonder my Nightforce took a dump.

Curious, if you are able to provide more detail, when you do work for a company around which aspect specifically does it typically involve? For those of us who aren’t as familiar with your work, could you please expound on exactly what it is you do? If not marketing, then what exactly? Are we talking about engineering of the optical appearance or function of the glass specifically? As in maximizing the image quality? Or does your experience involve engineering of the mechanical parts and construction of the scope?

Interesting. If I were involved with marketing of a riflescope, I would beat on them, and show them holding zero. That would be the basis of my marketing campaign. If you don’t have durability and zero retention in a scope, nothing else matters. At least not to me.

Stunt or not, that NF video where they freeze the scope in a block of ice, shoot the scope with a shotgun, pound a big nail into a stump with it, and then put it back on the rifle and shoot is a powerful and convincing video. There’s also the video of the NF guy beating the scope on its side and putting it back on a collimator. Despite your claim of NF not demonstrating anything, that sure demonstrates something to me — that the manufacturer has confidence in their product. I’d love to see Swaro or Zeiss or Leica, for example, do something similar. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes. Pretty glass, questionable construction. It’s only reasonable to surmise that if a manufacturer were actually building demonstrably durable scopes, they would be marketing such. I’m in no position to question your knowledge of the industry, but as a consumer it’s hard to believe that everyone is impact testing, as you state.

It doesn’t have to be that elaborate, but I find it shocking that the vast majority of scope manufacturers show no demonstration of durability at all in their marketing materials. If, as you say, “All the major manufacturers I have talked to in any sort of a detail do side impact tests” yet they are not showing us, they are doing themselves a disservice as it creates a perception that they are doing nothing. Only Trijicon, NF and kinda March (that I am aware of) show or make any claim at all of performing any sort of impact testing. Their loss.[/quote]


This...exactly. I'm not necessarily drinking the Form koolaid, but anyone that is questioning the mechanical reliability of Nightforce is simply wrong...or revealing their own biases. It's not just "marketing" if it's true. I won't argue other scope manufacturers have more "features", but if dialing values, RTZ, and zero retention are the primary goal (and they certainly are for me)...I'd sure like to know what scope manufacturer does that better.


That last part isn't rhetorical btw. If anyone believes there is a more reliable scope lineup than NF for tracking, return to zero, and zero retention as the primary goals then I'm all ears.

There is the nugget in the downward spiral that followed

I do not believe that any scope manufacturer, physically beats and Torture tests every single scope that comes off the production line,

Not happening.

On my own, I do some general consulting and occasionally design reticles for different companies. I am seldom involved in the engineering process. Sometimes I help with concept origination, figuring out what is important and what isn't, etc.

For my dayjob, the company I work for makes test equipment for all sorts of things including DVOs. www.ci-systems.com

ILya

I've posted this link in the past to a white paper regarding durability test development that SOPMOD contracted for ACOG and other firearm optics.

Worth a read just for fun.

https://re-test.com/uploads/shock-amplifier-1131275080.pdf

Interesting, sounds like a fun job. Please communicate that durability is MOST important. I’m glad some companies are starting to take notice and build better stuff, because all the features in the world mean nothing if the scope fails to work. IMO, we don’t need more scope options with more features. We do need more scope options that hold zero reliably and continue to do so after reasonable impact.

Note that Leupold's ad about testing on 'The Punisher' says: "Each scope design is tested...".

Good shootin' -Al

If that was the case, several hundred owners wouldn't have had to send their NF 15-55's back because they wouldn't track, hold zero or a combination of both. They've corrected the issue and that model has become very reliable.

Not a knock on NF as I like their stuff...just a reality check on a $2K scope 'oopsie'.

Good shootin' -Al

That was the way I interpreted the statement too…

https://exomtngear.com/blogs/podcast/375

About the 15 min mark they explain that every scope is ran through that test in the video I posted earlier before it's put in the package.

Currently listening to that podcast, thanks for the link.