Handle is eyekahn/icon but I am not a content creator but hey watch my content.
OP, you should upload this to the #texasbear page
OP, you should upload this to the #texasbear page
Rifle Scopes So, I threw my Arken off the shooting platform...
- Thread starter eyekahn
- Start date
So you're saying that you'd rather have a mount that literally cuts gouges in your scope base over one that does the same thing without causing any damage? I guess maybe we'll just agree to disagree on that one.
And it seems like you would be interested in whether or not the scope will hold zero if dropped when attached to a rifle. It would be a logical follow up to what you've already done.
This test doesn't provide any useful information, unless you are someone who constantly drops a scope when it's not attached to a rifle - and I don't know anyone that has this problem.
Every scope that is being used by us here is attached to a rifle. If the scope gets dropped, it will have a rifle attached to it - and with it a lot of extra mass and potential force.
Every scope that is being used by us here is attached to a rifle. If the scope gets dropped, it will have a rifle attached to it - and with it a lot of extra mass and potential force.
Eyekahn was a rapper.
Yes! Please like, share, and subscribe to my big YouTube channel!!!!!
What’s being said is rarely do you worry about a scope dropped on its own. The weight of the rifle or you landing on top it for example would make a big difference
Like dropping a marshmallow from 10 ft vs dropping a marshmallow taped to a brick from 10 feet.
Or an automaker performing a vehicle crash test. But detaching the front bumper to do so
It be more realistic to attach the scope to a 4x4 or something similar in weight to a rifle and drop it from standing a position onto the optic.
Like dropping a marshmallow from 10 ft vs dropping a marshmallow taped to a brick from 10 feet.
Or an automaker performing a vehicle crash test. But detaching the front bumper to do so
It be more realistic to attach the scope to a 4x4 or something similar in weight to a rifle and drop it from standing a position onto the optic.
The one thing I am failing to understand is why everyone here seems to think if you drop a rifle it will ALWAYS land optic first.
It may or may not. But if your testing a optics ruggedness that’s what you would test for. Worst case scenario.
Shooting a match and it falls off a prop, you drop it while walking, trip and fall on the rifle while hunting etc
We’re saying it’s an optic that while performing it’s duty would always be attached to a rifle.
Your test would be more suited to a pair of binoculars or a rangefinder for example
You've clearly never dropped sunglasses or eyeglasses.
They ALWAYS land on the lenses.
How many times does a scope get dropped without a rifle attached?
There at been at least one documented case where an optic been dropped without a rifle attached...
When you dive into a pool or let's just say dive from a high surface. Why don't your legs land first? They are the heaviest appendage on your body. The optic is the heaviest thing attached to your rifle but it does not outweigh the rifle itself. Im fully aware that if your rifle is laying flat, that would be bolt handle up. And you dropped it from let's say over 1ft the optic would start to turn the rifle upside down.
If your rifle is dropped muzzle first with a 1.5lb suppressor attached to a 5lb barrel I would be hard pressed to believe the optic would hit the ground first.
Listen, I'm not arguing that a scope attached to a rifle doesn't create more force than just a scope or that it isn't 100% more likely to be attached to a rifle when it's dropped in the real world.
My argument is that impacting something that has internal mechanisms to see if the impact on the item affects the internal components is a way to test the rigidity of the internal components. I didn't flick it with my finger and say it's ready for combat.
There is always a way to test it with more force. Always.
Let's take the rockslide tests for example, they are extremely thorough. I did not see a total weight of the rifle dropped however.
Let's say the rifle and optic weighed 9lbs. It was dropped 3ft. That's 27ftlbs of energy.
I threw a 2lb optic let's say 11 ft vertically. Could be 10, could be 12, who knows! It's about 3ft lower than the 7ft height of the rafter, and the optic went as high as the rafter. So that's 22ftlbs of energy.
That's not useless. That is just 80% of the energy applied to the optic compared to attaching it to a 7lb rifle and dropping it optic down from 3ft. Which was a height proven to shift zeroes in the rockslide tests.
You run your car into a wall going 45mph. You could have ran it into the wall going 55mph, because that's the speed you are usually traveling. But you still applied the force to your car, just 80% of the force of going 55mph
That is all.
When you dive into a pool or let's just say dive from a high surface. Why don't your legs land first? They are the heaviest appendage on your body. The optic is the heaviest thing attached to your rifle but it does not outweigh the rifle itself. Im fully aware that if your rifle is laying flat, that would be bolt handle up. And you dropped it from let's say over 1ft the optic would start to turn the rifle upside down.
If your rifle is dropped muzzle first with a 1.5lb suppressor attached to a 5lb barrel I would be hard pressed to believe the optic would hit the ground first.
Listen, I'm not arguing that a scope attached to a rifle doesn't create more force than just a scope or that it isn't 100% more likely to be attached to a rifle when it's dropped in the real world.
My argument is that impacting something that has internal mechanisms to see if the impact on the item affects the internal components is a way to test the rigidity of the internal components. I didn't flick it with my finger and say it's ready for combat.
There is always a way to test it with more force. Always.
Let's take the rockslide tests for example, they are extremely thorough. I did not see a total weight of the rifle dropped however.
Let's say the rifle and optic weighed 9lbs. It was dropped 3ft. That's 27ftlbs of energy.
I threw a 2lb optic let's say 11 ft vertically. Could be 10, could be 12, who knows! It's about 3ft lower than the 7ft height of the rafter, and the optic went as high as the rafter. So that's 22ftlbs of energy.
That's not useless. That is just 80% of the energy applied to the optic compared to attaching it to a 7lb rifle and dropping it optic down from 3ft. Which was a height proven to shift zeroes in the rockslide tests.
You run your car into a wall going 45mph. You could have ran it into the wall going 55mph, because that's the speed you are usually traveling. But you still applied the force to your car, just 80% of the force of going 55mph
That is all.
"actually"
9 lbs dropped 3 feet is 13.84 fps at impact with the ground.
Free Fall Calculator
Our free fall calculator can find the velocity of a falling object and the height it drops from.
www.omnicalculator.com
foot-pounds of energy comes out to be: 861.96 ft-pounds
Foot Pounds Of Energy Calculator
Foot Pounds of Energy calculator is a specialized tool designed to help you calculate energy output using the foot-pound unit of measurement.
calculatorcorp.com
Don't worry, I have been smacked around, too, for statements reckless with numbers.
Ok, now take 2lbs dropped at 11ft times whatever velocity you think the scope was traveling when I threw it. I'm just going by the cave man FT/LBS calculation that was first introduced as why my "test" was stupid and meaningless."actually"
9 lbs dropped 3 feet is 13.84 fps at impact with the ground.
Free Fall Calculator
Our free fall calculator can find the velocity of a falling object and the height it drops from.
foot-pounds of energy comes out to be: 861.96 ft-pounds
Foot Pounds Of Energy Calculator
Foot Pounds of Energy calculator is a specialized tool designed to help you calculate energy output using the foot-pound unit of measurement.
Don't worry, I have been smacked around, too, for statements reckless with numbers.
Here you go. No joy on any inserts in the factory box on any of the info you were asking for in the owners manual.
Maybe email [email protected] and they can provide you with the information you are in need of.
Attachments
Last edited:
Ok so 707 FT/LBS of energy. So still about 80% of the energy as dropping it 3ft attached to a typical bolt action rifle."actually"
9 lbs dropped 3 feet is 13.84 fps at impact with the ground.
Free Fall Calculator
Our free fall calculator can find the velocity of a falling object and the height it drops from.
foot-pounds of energy comes out to be: 861.96 ft-pounds
Foot Pounds Of Energy Calculator
Foot Pounds of Energy calculator is a specialized tool designed to help you calculate energy output using the foot-pound unit of measurement.
Don't worry, I have been smacked around, too, for statements reckless with numbers.
Meaningless and less meaningful are two entirely different things.
I do appreciate your contribution to the thread, that is not a sarcastic statement.
No click bait intended. It was a true statement. Just interpreted poorly, or worded poorly on my part. Title has been edited.
Ok so 707 FT/LBS of energy. So still about 80% of the energy as dropping it 3ft attached to a typical bolt action rifle."actually"
9 lbs dropped 3 feet is 13.84 fps at impact with the ground.
Free Fall Calculator
Our free fall calculator can find the velocity of a falling object and the height it drops from.
foot-pounds of energy comes out to be: 861.96 ft-pounds
Foot Pounds Of Energy Calculator
Foot Pounds of Energy calculator is a specialized tool designed to help you calculate energy output using the foot-pound unit of measurement.
Don't worry, I have been smacked around, too, for statements reckless with numbers.
Meaningless and less meaningful are two entirely different things.
If it means it'll return to zero when thrown the way I threw it.
These small spots don't keep me up at night. If you want something to be tight, then a softer surface like cerakote or some ano might have to get dug into. No biggie.
Attachments
I'd rather the scope be thrown on the ground without a rifle like op did compared to this guy's tests....
You want to tighten until you just feel it start to strip or crush the tube. Then back off a 1/4 turn. That way you know shes right on the edge
Wait you're not supposed to torque the rings to 25FT/LBS? It's IN/LBS????????? Is that why the bolt heads kept breaking? Damn it!
Yeah, like I said, a mount that has to damage the surface it interfaces with to hold & return to zero has a design problem.
But if you want to keep on thinking those gouges are a feature, not a bug, that's fine too.
To quote Arnold Schwartzenegger in the movie "Commando" when talking to the bad guy named Sully.
"What is importantt now is gravity."
It doesn't matter what the lateral velocity is. The scope is going to hit the ground at the same time as if you just dropped it in place.
So, the calculator takes one parameter, the mass in pounds. Gravitational constant is a given. And speed toward the ground is zero regardless of lateral motion.
I am not doubting that you meant well with dropping just the scope. My OCD is math and the ft-lbs was not adding up. So, I would not get hung up on the numbers, so much.
Put the scope on a bush beater or truck gun. Then chuck it.
Eric at IV8888 did just that in a realistic test with his golf cart.
Granted, he used a block of wood but it is closer to reality.
That's the thing. I don't think about those gouges at all. The mount repeats zero. I like Larue mounts. No big deal.
This was a fun one. At least I did learn something about how to calculate energy.
Does this test make it any less chinesium?
I learned this the hard way. I think I was probably 14 or 15 years old. Tightening connecting rod bolts in a lawn mower engine...
Well I can agree that abusing your gear is the only way to know if it’s worth a fuck, but I disagree so strongly about Larue mounts that I have a hard time deciding if you’re just trolling or not haha.
The only Larue mount I ever had that was worth a moderate pile of hammered bird shit was one for an acog that moved the optic rearward. All the others, and I’ve had a few, seemed to cause some issue or another than non vertical rings didn’t cause (and oddly even an ADM mount also with split verticals didn’t.)
Sold them years ago, I’ll never go back.
Nice triggers tho.
Well I can agree that abusing your gear is the only way to know if it’s worth a fuck, but I disagree so strongly about Larue mounts that I have a hard time deciding if you’re just trolling or not haha.
The only Larue mount I ever had that was worth a moderate pile of hammered bird shit was one for an acog that moved the optic rearward. All the others, and I’ve had a few, seemed to cause some issue or another than non vertical rings didn’t cause (and oddly even an ADM mount also with split verticals didn’t.)
Sold them years ago, I’ll never go back.
Nice triggers tho.
No trolling, besides the obvious sarcastic comments aimed at people who are just being clowns.Well I can agree that abusing your gear is the only way to know if it’s worth a fuck, but I disagree so strongly about Larue mounts that I have a hard time deciding if you’re just trolling or not haha.
The only Larue mount I ever had that was worth a moderate pile of hammered bird shit was one for an acog that moved the optic rearward. All the others, and I’ve had a few, seemed to cause some issue or another than non vertical rings didn’t cause (and oddly even an ADM mount also with split verticals didn’t.)
Sold them years ago, I’ll never go back.
Nice triggers tho.
You just saw proof that a Larue OBR mount will return to zero when taken off a rifle and put back on. It also secured the optic during an impact and a tumble.
OBR mounts do not use vertical rings.
Last edited:
Yeah admittedly I have no experience with the OBR mounts. At least they offer a different option.
Yea I've never actually tested the repeatability with the 104 or the other vertical mounts. I know they will still hold minute of man out to 200 since I've taken the optic off and on before on a carbine but never shot a group after removing a vertical ring Larue, so I have no comment or opinion on those style mounts.
That's gotta be one of the dumbest scope tests I've ever seen
Lowlight used to blow them up with Tannerite to see if they held zero.
I mean if I was going to toss a scope off something. It would be some chisesism like an Arkan.
One instance with one unit is not statistically significant. It does not create a trend or pattern. You can't say that it repeats... unless the test is repeated.
The distance out does not matter. It's the distance down. For example, the scope could be thrown out one hundred feet, but if it only falls down one inch...
This isn't the first time I have taken a Larue mount off this rifle and re attached and nothing happened. Also happened with an LT845 and LT840H
Just context. I'm surprised no one has questioned the impacts at 900M since everything else has been questioned. Put that photo in so you could see the range and that I'm not on a 100m firing line.
I do 900 with my rimfire after chucking my atlas bipod down my driveway to make sure it’s up to the task
So really the distance is meh
Yes. Mount it to an SR-25/AR-10 large frame, SCAR, or M107 and shoot a few thousand rounds through them.
Kissing the ground is nothing compared to the initial shock resonance from:
1) the firing of the cartridge,
2) the bolt striking the breech, or
3) the carrier slamming into battery
You can see the effects on an accelerometer. Dropping a scope doesn’t register even close to the carrier impacting the barrel extension on the return battery stroke.
Bolts guns are so much easier on optics. A quality optic meant to take a beating can be used like a baseball bat in a fit of rage on hard objects and not have the internals fail. The most fragile components to external impacts are the knobs, illumination housings, and objective bells.
I’ve broken or have seen in-person many scopes break over the years, almost all of which were cheap pieces of trash or ones made in places that don’t care about QC. One exception was a Schmidt & Bender PM II that I was using for accuracy-testing for a manufacturer. That scope had been installed and removed on countless rifles, about 1/3 of which were .338 LM, the others a mix of mostly .300 Win Mag and .308 Win. Not sure how many thousands of rounds were fired with it attached until the side focus went kaput. It took a lot of unusual abuse though.
Similar threads
Hunting & Fishing
My Nebraska Deer Season...so far.
