Scope field evaluations on rokslide

[Pdvdh]

I know the Form guy is supposed to be some sort of guru over on RS, and I have read some of his tests. However he needs to talk to someone who actually knows how to do testing, like an engineer who does product tests.

1. His testing isn't blinded. We've known for decades that operator bias CANNOT be overcome. That's why there are double-blind studies. So, scopes are all disguised as to brand. So, someone else drops the rifle (or doesn't), the one operating the hydraulic trigger puller on the machine rest (like a Hyscore) has no idea whether it was dropped or not. Then compare dropped to undropped. Repeat many times, standard deviation and all that, just like your chronograph.
2. Mounting is done by someone not involved in the testing process. Choose whatever rings you wish. Torque them all to specs. Measure for scope slippage in rings after each test cycle.
3. Uniform drop test; his aren't. Easy enough to design a uniform medium into which to drop, and a rail system to guide rifle so that each scope strikes the same.

Other than buying a machine rest, almost no cost involved in this.

Why don't you repeat his tests your way, the right way? After you've finished, write up all your reports and inform us how you conducted your tests, and which scopes passed your testing process, and can be counted upon to hold zero. Little Lady will help, I feel certain.

We can trust you, right?

Or do you expect and trust the manufacturer's to test their products and then tell us their scopes held zero? Yeah, history has shown us how well that works.

 

[Small Lady]

I know the Form guy is supposed to be some sort of guru over on RS, and I have read some of his tests. However he needs to talk to someone who actually knows how to do testing, like an engineer who does product tests.

1. His testing isn't blinded. We've known for decades that operator bias CANNOT be overcome. That's why there are double-blind studies. So, scopes are all disguised as to brand. So, someone else drops the rifle (or doesn't), the one operating the hydraulic trigger puller on the machine rest (like a Hyscore) has no idea whether it was dropped or not. Then compare dropped to undropped. Repeat many times, standard deviation and all that, just like your chronograph.
2. Mounting is done by someone not involved in the testing process. Choose whatever rings you wish. Torque them all to specs. Measure for scope slippage in rings after each test cycle.
3. Uniform drop test; his aren't. Easy enough to design a uniform medium into which to drop, and a rail system to guide rifle so that each scope strikes the same.

Other than buying a machine rest, almost no cost involved in this.

Can't do that though, then how would he be able to rig it for his nightforce scope to win?

The bias is strong in him.
So strong it's a huge turn off to some people.
I'll never ever buy a nightmare scope, just because of the video history of his cool aid drinking.
I'm more likely to believe the experiences of the people who I know, and talk to in person regularly.
All of them swear by Leupold, because they just work well, and don't need a cult members club.
There are some threads on this forum where its become the clique thing to bash Hornady ELDX bullets. Yet when I shoot them, and watch others shoot them, they do really well. So yes I read the bash fest threads, but they don't make me stop buying the ammo, or scopes, that I know work great, because I myself have experienced them, and so do those who are around me.
Most that are losing 0 on their premium scopes, should be checking their mounts first, the scope itself second.
Maybe its not as trendy on the internet though to say my mounts moved, or my scope moved in the mounts, as it is to say oh no my scope broke.
Last year a coworker lost 0 on his gun, after flipping his ATV with his gun in the scabbard.
Upon checking closer, the Leupold itself was just fine, but had moved in the rings. But hey, that won't be as cool of a clickbait video, and need them clicks to earn cash.

 

[Small Lady]

Why don't you repeat his tests your way, the right way? After you've finished, write up all your reports and inform us how you conducted your tests, and which scopes passed your testing process, and can be counted upon to hold zero. Little Lady will help, I feel certain.

We can trust you, right?

Or do you expect and trust the manufacturer's to test their products and then tell us their scopes held zero? Yeah, history has shown us how well that works.

Should we start out with a huge bias towards a particular brand, like the guru does?
If so which brand?
Nikon, Zeiss, or??????

 

[Pdvdh]

Should we start out with a huge bias towards a particular brand, like the guru does?
If so which brand?
Nikon, Zeiss, or??????

Share your test results? Open yourself up to the same criticism you spout.

 

[Darryle]

Should we start out with a huge bias towards a particular brand, like the guru does?
If so which brand?
Nikon, Zeiss, or??????

Simmons

 

[Phil Rizzo]

Should we start out with a huge bias towards a particular brand, like the guru does?
If so which brand?
Nikon, Zeiss, or??????

heavens No!
Let your own experience do that part for you.
No need to pay attention to others testing or personal experience when you can waste time, attention, components and have missed opportunities on your own.

 

[flyguy1]

Why don't you repeat his tests your way, the right way? After you've finished, write up all your reports and inform us how you conducted your tests, and which scopes passed your testing process, and can be counted upon to hold zero. Little Lady will help, I feel certain.

We can trust you, right?

Or do you expect and trust the manufacturer's to test their products and then tell us their scopes held zero? Yeah, history has shown us how well that works.

Zero interest. Been in research one way or another for 43 years. The point of a properly designed research protocol is there's no "trust" involved. None of the researchers knows which brands of the scopes are which, and whether on a particular trial, they have been dropped or not. The machine does the shooting, the numbers are tabulated, and only then are the scopes identified.

 

[Paladin300]

You guys can argue over who the best is all day long. I will just state this fact. There are more Leupold's on rifles in Alaska and Africa than probably all other brands combined, at least that has been my observation through the years. I have several friends that guide in both places and they all use Leupolds on their personal rifles. In those parts of the world a malfunction could cost you not just game or your lively hood but your life. The second most popular brand is S&B, again just my observations. The US Military use primarily NF, S&B, and Leupold. In law enforcement NF & Leupold hold the top spots in the US. Those are the three most respected brands in the industry used by professionals. Just my observations. There are others but their percent of the market is not a fraction of what these companies hold. TT and ZCO are becoming the standard for professional competitive shooters and Vortex is also in the mix. Again these guys all depend on them for their lively hood and by extension their lives. You can't really go wrong with any of them. TT (formerly Premier) and ZCO are the new kids on the block so their continued quality control is subject to change but S&B, NF and Leupold have been around forever. One of the reason Leupold sees a slightly hire issue count is because they outnumber all other brands 3-1. Just saying! Old man thought here! If it ain't broke don't go trying to fix it! I love innovation and playing with new toys at the range but when it comes to putting meat on the table or defending my life. I will take the tried and true. From a LRH perspective most will never need more than a Leupold, S&B or NF can offer.

 

[Pdvdh]

Zero interest. Been in research one way or another for 43 years. The point of a properly designed research protocol is there's no "trust" involved. None of the researchers knows which brands of the scopes are which, and whether on a particular trial, they have been dropped or not. The machine does the shooting, the numbers are tabulated, and only then are the scopes identified.

If you have zero interest in performing scope tests and reports, could you provide a link to testing and reporting that has been completed properly? So other members can reap the benefits?

 

[buzby]

Those are just torture tests based on the false assumption that your scope should hold its zero . Your favorite hunting knife is going to fail a torture test. The guy has found a click niche. A gullible click niche. Look at all the long range kills on this forum and ask if they were prudent enough to check their zero or not. Even trained professional snipers know to check their zero. Mount your scope, check your zero, and know your true click value. If you drop your rifle don't be stupid enough to think you can just go ahead and take the shot. If this guy was legit he would go the extra step and explain exactly what is mechanically failing so the ignorant engineers can make a better scope, lol.

An 18" drop onto a mat is not torture. The point of his tests, is that we don't have to assume our scopes won't hold zero. There are scopes that are actually reliable, and will hold zero. It's not just about droping either. He has documented scopes failing from riding in a truck. Sure, if something like a fall happens, you should 'confirm' zero. That doesn't mean you should expect it to have shifted.

 

[1mechanic]

Should we start out with a huge bias towards a particular brand, like the guru does?
If so which brand?
Nikon, Zeiss, or??????

Yes go with Nikon. Good luck.

 

[Darryle]

There are some threads on this forum where its become the clique thing to bash Hornady ELDX bullets. Yet when I shoot them, and watch others shoot them, they do really well.

#1) I had never had an issue with Leupold, still have 2, Vari-X III 6.5 - 20 x 50mm on my custom Model 70 243 coyote rig, an old M1 4.5 - 14 x 50mm on a Savage 112 25'06 LSSFV, rifle alone weighs over 10lbs. Neither has given me issues across multiple rifles since the day I bought both new. A couple of years ago, I had 3 consecutive brand new out of the box Leupold VX3/VX3-HD fail, reticle wouldn't move or they failed to retain zero. I have since quit Leupold altogether.

#2) The following was early on just after the ELD bullets were released. I have been present during or experienced ELD-X failures. We had bullets pencil thru deer, from 80yds to well over 300yds, multiple shots on some animals and multiple failures to expand. We have also experienced quite the opposite, bullets fragmenting on impact, creating craters, massive damage to near side and in one case, the doe shot at over 300yds was paralyzed but very much alive when we found her in the high grass well over 45 minutes later requiring a follow up round to the noggin.

Also heard first hand reports from close friends that had multiple failures with the ELD-X on elk, these are guys I have hunted with for decades. 7 pencil holes in one elk at reasonable distances and multiple holes in another, same pencil holes. Both Elk were recovered and they all 3 were flabbergasted at the complete failure to expand.

These were typical results of the early years of the ELD bullets, I think many here experienced the same results early on. While they were very accurate, the result afterwards was the problem.

While Hornady has made adjustments to their ELD bullets and many have since reported good results with the latest formula of ELD bullets. For me, I still refuse to use them.

 

[Barrelnut]

Simmons

I have a Simmons scope I bought in 1986. It hasn't lost zero in over 35 years and spent most of those years on a 7 RM. It's from back in the days when they were made in Japan. Just sayin...

 

[Phil Rizzo]

I have a Simmons scope I bought in 1986. It hasn't lost zero in over 35 years and spent most of those years on a 7 RM. It's from back in the days when they were made in Japan. Just sayin...

Is the mechanism frozen up?
im kiddin.