Cumsincowboys finds it disconcerting,that folks actually shoot rifles that exist,with Live Ammo. Hint.
Fhuqking LAUGHING!.......................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
Fortunately for you,Imagination and Pretend are free,so even YOU can "afford" to "contribute". Hint.
Fhuqking LAUGHING!...................
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
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
What brand of scopes do you prefer?
"Full time night woman? I never could find no tracks on a woman's heart. I packed me a squaw for ten year, Pilgrim. Cheyenne, she were, and the meanest bitch that ever balled for beads."
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.
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.
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. 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 only 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 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.
Brad says: "Can't fault Rick for his pity letting you back on the fire... but pity it was and remains. Nothing more, nothing less. A sad little man in a sad little dream."
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.
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/923/62Dwq4.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/922/r8E7EQ.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/924/HpWAr6.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/922/6zyQRT.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/924/DSyWCC.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/922/BCu0fL.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/922/7iCUZw.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/924/3Y9SaE.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/924/3j3K8n.jpg)
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/922/gBsyWM.jpg)
![[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fthats-normal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F06%2Fsaw-that-coming.gif%3Fresize%3D450%252C253&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=694422ab69f70db4b9f9242436ab7c5431acf0a8a89d49b58a50b839fc6ac2d3.gif)
