Earlier today I read Form's very well done test regarding the Tract Response and decided to my own quick/crude test.


Grabbed my two favorite deer rifles and double checked their 200 yard zero's.

Both are 270's shooting 140 Accubonds, one a Montana and the other an old ADL.

Drop height was roughly 36", about waist high. There were leaves mixed in with grass so it wasn't a really hard landing but still a fairly good test. I could hear the scope literally hitting hard ground a couple times so the leaves and grass didn't cushion every drop.

I will have to point out that the first test with the Tract needed a redo vid as it was out of focus. So that particular scope took a grand total of 6 drops. To be fair I also dropped the Leupold a couple extra times(off camera).

Nice test Sam. Thanks!

Not very scientific but....

I should have done like Form and did a test shot after each drop.




Will add that each scope adjusted back to bulls eye without any issues.

"I guess they both suck".

grin. Not that it's funny.



I have little doubt that there are issues with them, but I do want to put the caveat out there that mounts, rings, and bedding play a part as well. I just want people to understand that rifles are a system. If you want your gun to stay zeroed then you have to use scopes, mounts, and rings that are designed for that, then they have to be assembled correctly.

Looks like the Montana that you're using has a good mounting system- can't tell what the bases are, but the Warne MT's have been solid for us.

Warne bases as well I think(?).

(just checked my MidwayUSA orders and they are Warne Maxima bases with Mountain Techs)



The M700 has Leupold PRW bases and rings which seem to hold up. That one will be in a scabbard for about 20-30 miles this upcoming week.



I was highly irritated when I walked up to check the target!

I don't understand why the hell fiolks are dropping rifles in the first place. I've hunted every season for the past 42 years and have never actually dropped a rifle. Much of that has been afoot, still hunting steep, snow covered terrain in the Catskills. If dropping rifles is a common occurance ya'll must be some clumsy fuggers.

Trying to remember if I've ever dropped one myself. Nothing that I can remember...

My test was more or less performed out of curiosity.

At least now I know that I'd better check zero ASAP if I ever do happen to drop one while out hunting....

Great work Sam. I haven’t sweated those drops as much since I’ve swapped over to SS 6’s. They have been rock solid. I cannot say my rifle has ever fallen out of my paws but it has fallen over while in the rocks and I quickly set the rifle on a poor choice while getting my bins out. Stuff happens in the field.

Form, thank you for the work as well. Pretty danged informative for a hard use rifle.

I hit a big dip in my jeep years ago, Sako Deluxe, passenger seat, and spare all flew out. Radiator hose came off, big mess. I was going about 30, to fast. Dumass me.

The Sako landed flat, it had a couple nice scratches. The old 4x12 Redfield was still on. I still have it on a 22 mag.

Bingo.

Form's drop test on the Tract cheapo "tactical" scope made some sense because of the target market for that scope. Hunting scopes, not so much.

To the best of my recollection, I've twice dropped scopes; one a Lyman 8x on a Sako .223 back in the 80s, and one a few weeks ago at the range. The Sako slid off the fender of my SS 396 Camero and landed smack dab on the bell. A few minutes later, I missed a chip shot on a crow standing in a field at about 100 yards. The rifle was hitting about a foot high, but after resighting was fine thereafter. The other, a Leupy 2.5 slid off the side of the crappy bench at my local range before I had sighted it in. Not sure exactly how it landed, but I had no trouble getting it sighted in.

Scopes vying for military contracts and targeted at the tactical crowd need to be solid enough for rough and tumble stuff, but the kind of ruggedness required to withstand repeated drops and such not only makes them hideously expensive, it also makes them heavier than many are willing to tote around in the field. I'll go maybe 20oz for sturdiness and especially for good adjustments and brightness, but that's about it. After a bit of snooping about, I'm thinking NF SHV 3-10x42 w/Forceplex for my next one or possibly a fixed 6 S&B for a bit more $.

Have you ever hunted sheep?

Goat hunting is really rough on gear too.

I dropped a Tract Toric yesterday. It was slung on my back and the sling swivel popped. The rifle/scope went down the hill behind me. Little ticked at Barrett as the sling swivel female threads stripped out....stud can be pushed in/out. Gonna have to replace the inlet, bed it in, or just use an Eberlestock the rest of the year. Stuff happens, scopes hit the ground....I'll check this one later this week to see if the 0 is where it should be.

As an aside, if you use a HPG kit bag while carrying a rifle and absolutely have to have both hands, you can push the rifle horizontal between the bag and your chest...not the most comfortable but will allow you to crawl up a really steep spot on a mountainside.

Thanks for sharing. This is all making me feel better and better about deciding to put a SWFA SS 6x on my Kimber Montana.

I guess we're just some of the clumsiest, fittest, well trained humans with a gun then because every hunting trip to the mountains in the last 4-5 years has resulted in at least one rifle hitting the deck. Whether it's sliding off a tailgate or tree, hitting the ground while it's strapped to a pack crossing a shale slide, or breaking a fall, at least one person and usually multiple, have a hit on their rifle. That's only 3-4 people each trip....









It's an aiming device. Not to be dramatic- but your carrying a lethal instrument, whether for hunting or not, that doesn't work if it takes a bump... It is extremely possible to make a $400 scope that is rugged- the problem is that hunters and shooters aren't demanding it.






Everyone that is saying "don't drop them", you are rationalizing why your aiming device- the thing you use to steer bullets- fails from minor impacts. It's an aiming device, it should remain zeroed.

I thought dropping them was to break in the barrel...

Notice how the barrel and stock take all the abuse. That is a stock, bedding and barrel break-in.

To properly break in a scope you have to let it land on the scope....

I have fallen hard with rifles more than once when hunting rough country. Also, Once had a leather sling slip off my shoulder and land on the turret. Falls and airplane rides seem to result in about a 30 percent chance of losing zero in my experience. Mounts matter, too, when rifles are used hard. I am pretty specific about what mounts I will use and have whole rifle lines that I boycott because of ill conceived mounting systems (i.e. Sako).

In my opinion, scopes have the biggest need for improvement in regards to reliability. The norm is truly terrible. Rifle function is a distant second. I have had three of a brand of well respected high end rifles known for accuracy and not one would feed to my expectation, though most seem to rave about them. Had four of a high-end lightweight rifle that fed a little better but not much and if you worked the action from the shoulder like one would a Mauser, the spring holding the bolt stop would break and the bolt would fly out the back of the action. I think it happened to everyone of them at least once. The maker always got really grouchy when I called to have one of those springs shipped.

Thanks for the info. I’ve never dropped one and if I did, I’d check zero.

I don't think that "demanding" is gong to accomplish anything. They know exactly what they're doing. It's a business decision.

I don't expect a lightweight hunting scope to take the kind of abuse you put that Tract through, but it needs to stand up to recoil (stress in the expected direction) and hold zero. I can even put up with some vagueness in the adjustments as long as it stays put once sighted in, pretty much what classic hunting scopes did for years.

People put up a demand for "long range" scopes... look what happened.

I mean everyone has their choices if it's ok with you that your scope is fragile... rock on.

Thanks for the test Sam! And Wow the fixed Leupold actually did better than the Toric!

Did the scopes hit harder than it looks? Appears that the grass and leaves made for a pretty cush landing....
Recoil seems like it would be harder on the scope than that.

I knock mine around much more than that, just in normal hunting. You should have seen the wipe out I did the other day. I had to look for my rifle. Corks from here on out...(grin)

Yeah - truly enlightening to see how hardcore some of you guys "hunt". Duly noted when these same people have any opinion of gear or well, pretty much anything...

Never fallen with your rifle? Laughable...

I've gone back to iron sights.


I can't guess how many rifles I've had to 'retrieve' over the years. The worse is having to wait 3 hours for the tide to drop before you can get your rifle back.

Dang, this thread is depressing. Do I have a chance in hades of killing anything this year, or should I start scope shopping now? I can always put my SS 3-9x42 on that 7-08 if I have to (helluva good scope IMO).

A couple of years ago I launched my rifle from the ATV, case and all (mount broke). Looked like a wagon wheel for about 10 yards. Yes, I did have to re-zero! Dropped mine several times in Namiiba, mostly the low hanging branches and such would snag it off my shoulder.

Most manufacturers do not test or build scope for side impacts. It's amazing how little it takes to knock one off.









JG,

That green rifle is as ugly as I've ever seen......








Can I have it?

Never said I haven't fallen. Said I've never dropped my rifle. Big difference. In fact I've fallen several times. It's inevitable when hunting steep country in snow/ice/mud/. My rifle has never been allowed to hit the ground yet however. I guess some of us are just more coordinated and/or know how to negotate steep terrain while keeping our rifles from harm better than others. Thinking back, I've hunted many years with my dad, brothers and friends and can't recall a single rifle dropped among any of us.

Laughing with you...

I've had some interesting falls as well....

What's in the little silver box?

I need some mil/mil lessons.......maybe we can work something out.

That's definitely an interesting problem Scott....grin..

Ammo case that goes with me to Africa. It's required.

I pulled a good one a while back. I leaned my rifle against my back tire after getting done calling. Put my gear up,except for my rifle, and drove off. Made it a little ways before I realized I left my rifle against the tire. I went back and there it was in the dirt,where it had fallen.I took it home and checked the zero. It was still spot on,no adjustments needed. A well bedded Mc Milan stock,a good pic rail and a SS 3x15 scope. It just never moves, even when it probably should.

atse, if I may hijack for a minute.....how do you like that SS 3-15? In talking to my mentor the other day (GregW), I complained to him that while I really have warmed up to my 3-9 SS, my 56 yr old eyeballs sometimes like more magnification. He suggested it may be one for me to consider. What say you?

I'd say scope makers responded to a developing market, which isn't quite the same thing, but whatever.

As far as "fragile" scopes are concerned, I'm willing to trade off some durability for a reduction in weight, better eye relief, compactness, and a good hunting reticle. Almost 50 years experience has proven that's a good compromise for me. I've never had a scope break in the field, or even fog up internally, and in the past I hunted in whatever weather happened along when I was able to get out. I don't bang my rifles around on ATVs or the back of pickups and I'm careful to set them down so they won't fall over. Over the years, ordinary Weavers (El Paso), Leupolds, and even a few Bushnells have worked perfectly fine in set-and-forget mode, with Leupolds being the most satisfactory in general. Now that I have the time and a place to fiddle around on a range a good bit, I'm also interested in scopes that have accurate and consistent adjustments. That ain't any Leupold I've ever had, so I bought a 6x SS last Spring, and it works like everybody said it would, but it's not a good scope for a lot of the hunting I do mostly because the reticle is too fine for dim light (proven, not just rumor) and it's too bulky for poking through the bushes. Put low, covered turrets on it and give it a good duplex like the SHV or something like the TPlex in the Tracts and I'll buy at least three of them. In the mean time, I bought a heavily discounted Japanese Tract Tekoa, and I'm hoping for the best. In the event one of my Leupolds fails or I just get an itch, I'll probably get an 3-10 SHV with the Forceplex as that seems to combine just about everything I want and is sturdy as well. I can do $850 for all that.

Its a great scope. I like the knobs on the 3x9 better as they are smaller and stiffer. The turrets on the 3x15 can get moved accidentally once in a while. The glass is still very good,and the 2 that we have, are rock solid reliable. Always return to zero ect. ect. I do most of my hunting with it,although I think the 3x9 is a better hunting scope due to reticle size, and the turrets .

Give me a shout anytime.

SWFA passed the fall over test. Old 700AS stock - not so much.

My rifles have taken a beating before I even get out of the truck.

Washed out dirt roads and 3\4 ton suspension will rattle and bounce the chit out of everything.

Next time you go sheep hunting, or goat hunting as Gerry pointed out, get back to us.

Well, that was a disappointing little test. I guess even the expensive Tracts are pretty much the same as the Nikons their principals came from, on the inside(?). The grass & leaves didn't seem like they allowed very hard impacts. I've certainly had a rifle tip over before, or otherwise banged it on something or dropped it. Never on purpose, obviously, but it's certainly happened.

I haven't had significant issues as a result of such lapses with a couple of scope lines, and I've just added a Bushy, so we'll see how that goes, but I _have_ had issues with other scope lines or brands. Hope the LRHS stays put.

A couple years ago I did a "drop test" with my 3-9x SS on a Kimber Montana. I wanted a fairly severe impact but no "road rash", so I put the works in one of those cheap Plano rifle cases (thin plastic). Instead of dropping the rifle, I threw it about 20 feet, from a ~5 foot height. On the second throw, the muzzle of the barrel punched a hole thru the case. It landed on some small logs for at least one impact; we were shooting from a log landing.

I checked the muzzle to make sure it wasn't plugged with dirt, then hit a 6" target at 490 yards from prone. I never had to adjust the zero on that scope after that test, or after some some pretty hard falls in blow down while hunting.

Certainly not scientific, but reassuring that nothing shifted.

Jason

One thing to keep in mind: we can't conclusively say the impact caused the scopes to change zero. The base or rings -- or even a change to the way the actions rested in their respective stocks after the falls -- may have been at fault for the shift in POI. It may have even been a combination of things.

Yes, Formidilosus mentioned this. Bedding, action screws, bases, rings, etc are all part of it.

Bobby at some point you have to ask how many points does it take to draw a line? We have two points now. SWFA seems to pass such tests if I am not mistaken?

Though people have jumped on the bandwagon, SWFA is far from perfect. I personally know of at least two individuals -- one with a variable and one a straight 6x -- in the past month who had one go haywire and have read of others. No manufacturer (not that SWFA is one -- they are just a retailer) is immune, either, and that includes makers of high-dollar optics.

Scopes are not made of armor plate. They are aluminum tubes holding glass and metal or plastic components. They are an optical instrument.

The military has specifications for drop tests. Years ago a company put a new radio through a mil-spec drop test. Then the engineers read the spec. The spec called for the radio to be drop tested IN ITS PACKAGING. As the project lead reported at the next review "This radio is not available for further testing."

Well this certainly isn't great to see on a Monday morning. By no means will we just ignore this post or video...but as Formidosus summed up above, there are a lot of unknowns on this test. Certainly no offense to SamO either, as any test like this done by company's are typically meticulously planned to cover all such variables.

First off, Sam, if you think there is a issue with the Toric, give us a call and we'll pick that scope up and test it and if there is any issue, absolutely replace it. I say it like that because we will put the scope in a testing jig to eliminate all human or other mechanical potential error for testing.

We don't want to second guess if the rings came loose, base screws, or just other environmental (wind in this case) or human errors.

For the sake of research, does anybody have a SWFA and 30mm rings they could send SamO to repeat the test on the Kimber?

SamO,

Just watched the video.

Wow, that's really taking one (two) for the team!

When I saw the Leupy land on the bell, I knew where that was headed, just like my Sako story.

Makes me think that scopes with straight-tube front ends, or smaller ones anyway (especially close to the front ring) are more likely to live through falls from leaning situations. Also, it occurs to me that heavy scopes are more likely to rotate around during a fall and land right on the worst place.

Thanks.

I haven't hunted sheep or goat, need to save some more pennies. I do think if I had my rifle fall on its scope on a hunt of that nature I may back off and take a shot of to to confirm the rifle is still sighted in. A hunt like that would be in the many thousands of dollars for me and the peace of mind confirming 1 or 2 shots would put me at ease. Everyone may feel differently though.

I started doing “drop tests” a few years back, the results were enlightening and disappointing. They’ve led me to become fairly obsessive about my bases, rings, and scopes. All my rifles now wear 1 piece rails, pinned and glued both, with good picatinny ring systems. My light duty hunting scope is a LRHS, and my heavy rifles have 34mm tube Bushnells. Zero is not never lost, but it’s now quite rare, and by small amounts (.2 mil vs 2-6 inches). Results in the field have improved as well, very noticeably. It’s to the point I occasionally don’t confirm zero with every rifle as my first order of business at the range, I sometimes go straight to practicing! Used to be I was slipping a turret on something virtually every range trip...

I hope you get everything sorted out Sam, if you’re like me it can drive you a little crazy till you do.

Would his first name start with an M????

Since I've never hunted sheep or goats and have zero desire to ever do so I reckon I don't need a sheep/goat hunting proof scope.

Thanks for posting this. To my eye, that doesn't seem to be an overly tough "test" and it is disappointing to see the change with both scopes.

my cousins wifes brothers son had a friend who also had the same problem. Bobby come on now...what is your agenda here?

jimmyp-

Your ridiculous post doesn't justify a response, but I'll ask nonetheless: How does stating facts equate to having an agenda?

Regards "fact" we just had two men test two scopes and posted the results, we also has a thread not too long ago regards SWFA problems, but I digress. You "know" of two people that had problems would be what they refer to in court as hearsay, while the two tests we just saw would be what they call "evidence". Please post any evidence of SWFA failures I am truthfully interested. Hopefully this will not be taken in the spirit of an insult.

[quote

my cousins wifes brothers son had a friend who also had the same problem. Bobby come on now...what is your agenda here? [/quote]

Jimmy, having known Bobby for quite a few years, I can tell you there no one less likely to have an "agenda" than Bobby Tomek. He has had and hunted just about every scope you can imagine and calls them as he sees them.

I just sent a 3x9 SS in a month ago. Wouldn’t return to zero. Folks in Texas said it was just a bad erector. It happens but I still use them. The 6’s have been flawless so far. I’m trying the new 3x9 on a less important rifle for the moment just to make sure it works as it’s supposed to.

First of all thanks for the replies.


Secondly I want to be clear that this post was not intended as a bash against either Tract or Leupold. Just a report of a very crude and highly unscientific 'test'.

The reason for repeated drops was that I wanted to make sure that each scope received a satisfactory thump. I could tell when they really did hit the ground directly. Yeah sure there were leaves, grass, etc., but IMHO they both took a decent hit or two.

The 6x36LR Leupold is my favorite all around hunting scope and I plan to continue using them.

The Tract obviously doesn't have the track record but I will continue to use it as well.

I bought the Tract to be used as an open country mule deer scope. The BDC matches up almost perfectly with the 140 Accubond so I thought why not?


Reticles are a very subjective matter but I happened to like it for how I use that particular rifle. I hunt with Swaro 8x42 SLC's and while the Torics glass isn't quite that good it is pretty damn close. People say scope glass is overrated but why not have really nice glass in a hunting scope? Evenings coming on and you have a nice buck at 400-500 yards why not have good 10x glass at your disposal? Of course if the scope isn't capable of 'steering' the bullet the best glass in the world is worthless.


Back to the 'test'.



Both rifles have the lug/tang bedded and both generally shoot very well. I use a torque wrench, degrease, etc., and try to eliminate as many variables at possible but am certainly not confident enough to claim that the scopes are 100% to blame.

We're any beers harmed during these "tests"?

A drop test, Heineken vs Bud light is in order. The people want...no, DEMAND, to know!

No beers were harmed in this production!


(cue Mathman to state that neither Heineken or Bud Light is beer...)

How many beers did it take to play lawn darts with your rifles?

That was a semi early morning affair so zero booze involved.


Stella skunk right now though!

Jimmy, having known Bobby for quite a few years, I can tell you there no one less likely to have an "agenda" than Bobby Tomek. He has had and hunted just about every scope you can imagine and calls them as he sees them.
[/quote]

I respect Bobby's opinion and I apologize for any offense if any were taken.

Wow! For such an awesome outdoors guy and savvy gunman, you seem to be quite sloppy.

Yup, everything produced by man (nature for that matter) no matter how well designed, how well manufactured and how well tested is going to have a percentage of those items fail at some point. Between manufacturing defects, damage in transit, damage in installation, damage in use, failure is guaranteed to crop up once in awhile.

I appreciate the research done by high volume shooters that has led me to switching to SWFA SS 6x and 10x scopes, but I'd not be the least bit surprised to find out I happened to be that guy that got a dud.

While the results were unnerving, it was a great test. I'd encourage you to do more.

I know I've said it before, but a detailed look at the variety of mechanical strategies and mechanisms used by all the major players is long overdue. Optical sights are vastly more complex than they were even 25 years ago. Modern scopes are more refined and robust than ever. They commonly incorporate a parallax adjustment mechanism with a variable power zoom up to 5x, 6x, ,8x with a fast focus diopter adjustment with an illuminated reticle with broadly adjustable systems for elevation and windage correction. You get the picture. The price of combining all these features with increasing robustness is complexity. Generally speaking, complexity is the enemy of reliability.

At first glance, why wouldn't everyone want to have it all, especially when manufacturers lead them to believe that can have it all and at a reasonable price. What we're seeing is that in very few cases can we have it all at any price. For me, I'd like to understand what the tradeoffs are and this will only be possible with much better understandings of what's inside.

What's exactly happening when Sam drops his scoped rifles? What isn't happening when JimmyP's buddies play catch and pound on RxR ties with theirs?

Kingston, bro, I want to test the rest of my small sample of scopes(mostly all Leupolds) but am too chicken.


Better wait until after hunting season...grin

I've been tempted to start taking mine apart.

Maybe the chamois hunters in Europe have the right idea. Climb the mountain and spot your critter, take your scope out of your pack and snap it on your rifle, and blammo, dead lttle goat.

Exactly. The difference between scope brands and models isn't that some fail and others never, ever do. It's that some fail at a much higher rate than others.

For example, Leupold's failure rate over the lifetime of a scope is 40%, while the failure rate for NF is 1%, and SWFA SS is 1.5%



Of course those numbers are completely fabricated, but I'd bet they're not too terribly far off...

I agree, Sam. I'll always take superior glass to mediocre glass, but only AFTER mechanical robustness is established. Once mechanics are where they should be, then we can start talking about tiny improvements in glass, but not before. IMO, anyway.

Just have her douche twice next time before you [bleep] her, maybe you won't notice the sloppy stuff.

I have dropped one, I was shooting 'roos and managed to let go of a 14 1/2 lbs rifle with a 2 oz Jewell I just stuck out the window of the Landcruiser, you will not believe how quick I made it to the other side of the vehicle to get that damned gearbox between me and the muzzle, I made it before the rifle hit the ground.

The 24 brd did not need adjusting...I did pull a projectile, drop half the powder and fire what was left into the air to clear the dirt obstruction though...rifle never missed a beat and I kept shooting for the rest of the night.

Scared the living [bleep] out of me at the time.

Dang close... a little high on NF, but REAL close.

hoping the Trijicon 1-8 accupower will be in the 1-2%, I just bought a red mil/mil and a badger mount. IF NF would make the NXS in 2.5-10 x 42 with the forceplex it would solve my other problem. I am thinking SB but would prefer another NF.

If the 2.5-10 was available with the forceplex I'd jump on it. Thinking hard about the 3-10 SHV, if it had a zero stopped elevation it'd be that much better. Anyone run the 3-10 uncapped and dialing elevation?

Online specs and other folks reviews only go so far, nothing beats hands on testing....if only they came with a free trial offer!

I have no idea what the failure rates are either, but if you're in the ballpark you also bring up the issue of diminishing returns. For my uses the added reliability of the NF isn't worth the added cost. If my life was on the line or I was a serious competitive shooter, it would be.

Sadly I think my 2.5x compact leupold is starting to die. The zero on my 350 rem mag seems to have shifted and to my eye the reticle has rotated counter clockwise in the tube. It's a bummer because I bought it from premier reticles and had them fit one of their 4a reticles and click turrets. Premier no longer works on Leupold and I wouldn't expect Leupold to warranty a scope modified by a third party.

I thing my loopies are going to be turning into super chickens in the next year or so.

What about the 'added' cost of the SWFA?

Either way, you're completely missing or ignoring the point: Mechanical function FIRST. If you don't have enough money for _anything_ else, you shouldn't have to sacrifice basic mechanical function.

Went around a corner too fast tonight and my Sucko slid off the truck seat and slammed up against the door and onto the floorboards, right on the SWFA.... if it knocked it off at all I'll be sure to post about it but I ain't betting it did....grin

This test would have been a LOT better had ONE of the scopes not had any problems at all. Maybe just too severe a test.

What brand of scope was Big Stick using in his break in video earlier in this thread?

Probably a Leupold in Talley LW Rings.

Sam's test was a side impact, but recoil would have much higher g forces.
I would bet that bumping the door frame on a pickup would be more of a shock also.


Sam, if you want to step that test up a peg, drop by.
Ain't no fugg in way you could drop a rifle several times
around here and not hit multiple rocks.

Only ever dropped a gun once. A green briar got between my fingers and thumb somehow.
As I walked, a long stem slid trough my hand and deposited thorns, while pulling my hand open.
It was only an 870 Express so the gun didn't matter.
But I was really pissed that I had dropped a gun.

I have spent the last 53 years hunting in Alaska and every trip I have been very lucky and never dropped my rifle. Just the thought of my pretty pre-64 Featherweight ought six or customized Marlin 45-70 falling to the ground makes me cringe, not to mention my custom .338 Mod. 70 Winny with a Bansners synthetic. I pray my luck continues.

I can't remember the last time I "dropped" a rifle but I did fall really hard a couple of months ago. Landed on top of a granite boulder that was just barely sticking about the surface of the soil. I landed on the hand holding the rifle with fingers wrapped around the fore-end. I "saved" the rifle but sacrificed my fingers!! Broke one and mangled the skin on two of them. Saved the rifle though! Scope still works as advertised!





Here is the broken finger a day later with the mangled skin cut off. I cleaned it up on the game warden's tailgate using his first aid kit!

Pretty sure he's switched over to pretty much all sightron and vortex. He was using some swfa's but found out they were made by tasco and dropped them.

40% "failure rate" on Leupolds "over the life of the scope ? From drop tests, right ? I've had a variety of Leupolds hit the ground hard. I've never had to rezero one. The place I hunt has probably the most treacherous ground I've ever seen. On a 3-4 week hunt, I'd average at least one hard fall per trip. Yet my Leupold 4X, and 6X42's have always stayed zeroed. Yes, I shot them all right after the fall. Many of them were literally pitched away from me so I could have both hands free to break my fall.
I've also done this with an older 3-9X33 Compact, and a new 1.5-4X Scout Scope. Same results.
I do agree that strong mounts, and proper scope mounting are vital. Of that, scope mount failures, I have seen a good bit of. Far more than scopes breaking or loosing zero. E

I didn’t watch the video until after I made what I thought was a wise crack. Irony. LOL...

In the past 20+ years I can think of two rifles & scopes that have taken goodly falls.

One was a Browning Abolt Micro, with a Loopey 2.5-8 vx-iii - took it to the range, and found some idiot had duct taped all their sand bags, which made them slick. I laid the Micro on top of bags, turned and walked away, got maybe 5 steps and heard a clatter. It had slid off the bags, tumbled off the concrete bench, and landed on the concrete pad. The rifle stock was thoroughly scratched, the scope had a ding in the front bell, but nothing broke. I shrugged, sat down at the bench and fired it. It moved maybe an inch at 100. I rezero'd it and took it hunting. I realize Aborts are supposed to be total CF's but the gun & scope seemed tough enough.

With a #1 and a vx-iii 3.5-10x40, I had the bright idea to photograph it in the middle of nowhere, on top of a fence post. That was a fine idea until the wind gusted and blew it off the post. A scratch or two, but the fancy wood stock didn't break, and the zero didn't move at all. I will allow the .270 Winchester aura may have protected the rifle & scope, however....

I remember your “3-4 week hunts” in Lima. I don’t recall much hunting, though. Mostly just bitching about how you couldn’t find an elk in one of the most elk-infested corners of Montana.