Rifle Scopes Revisiting drop testing

#101
wind gypsy said:
Not many, 5 in 2025. Likely done for the year because hunting seasons are open.



Forces are different for sure and from different directions. My understanding was that much of scope design and testing was to resist loss of zero from recoil which is in a different direction to forces laying flat in a case on an ATV rack.
Click to expand...
In short like putting reg scope on spring air rifle. Beats it in different direction then designed.

Not sure how much modern scopes are designed for side impacts. I know most are now air rifle rated. I broke a few nice scopes back in 1990’s putting on spring guns
 
  • Like
Reactions: wind gypsy
#102
wind gypsy said:
Not many, 5 in 2025. Likely done for the year because hunting seasons are open.



Forces are different for sure and from different directions. My understanding was that much of scope design and testing was to resist loss of zero from recoil which is in a different direction to forces laying flat in a case on an ATV rack.
Click to expand...
And where did you get this understanding?

We can see a scope body flexes laterally with every shot.
 
#103
supercorndogs said:
And where did you get this understanding?
Click to expand...
Partially from rokslide reports but also wandering or lost zeros from side impacts and riding in vehicles when the same issues didn't show up from lots of rounds down range. Also because the durability testing i've seen like with the Leupold "punisher" seems to be just recoil related.
supercorndogs said:
We can see a scope body flexes laterally with every shot.
Click to expand...

I struggled a bit with basic college physics but i dont believe the forces to be the same just because there is flex under front and back recoil.
 
#104
MikeMiller said:
In short like putting reg scope on spring air rifle. Beats it in different direction then designed.

Not sure how much modern scopes are designed for side impacts. I know most are now air rifle rated. I broke a few nice scopes back in 1990’s putting on spring guns
Click to expand...
My springer destroyed more mounts than scopes. First mount bent and the rings dug into the scope tube. I would guess the rings cut half the thickness of the tube for about 1/4". I went to get a picture but I put it on a buddies 10/22, 2-7 baraska. He shoots pdogs with it.

Here are some rings that broke off the tip off. Reticle in that cheap scope is broken also. Still holds zero though. A 29 flip valuation new would be genrous. 🤣🤣🤣
20250923_110513.jpg
20250923_110628.jpg


My current Gamo whisper wears a cheap hawk scope. It's been shot a lot but I haven't had to rezero. A lot is 2k+ shots. I had zero troubles on it too until I got the rings to stop sliding and the scope to stop sliding in the rings.
 
#105
wind gypsy said:
Partially from rokslide reports but also wandering or lost zeros from side impacts and riding in vehicles when the same issues didn't show up from lots of rounds down range. Also because the durability testing i've seen like with the Leupold "punisher" seems to be just recoil related.


I struggled a bit with basic college physics but i dont believe the forces to be the same just because there is flex under front and back recoil.
Click to expand...

So to try to get right to the point of this. You think if you bump a scope sidways, there is something inside the scope that moves and causes small shifts in zero. And this movment would not happen under recoil, because the physics of recoil are only front to back. Correct?
 
#106
supercorndogs said:
So to try to get right to the point of this. You think if you bump a scope sidways, there is something inside the scope that moves and causes small shifts in zero. And this movment would not happen under recoil, because the physics of recoil are only front to back. Correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. My understanding is that those different types/directions of forces stress different portions of a scopes design when it comes to zero retention. I'm open to being educated though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NateVA
#108
To my underdtanding the diffrence between an air rifle rated scope and one that's not, is an extra dab of glue on the other side of the lens. Air rifles don't cause a scopes zero to wander. They knock lenses out of their holding fixture.

The idea that something loose in a scope isn't going to move from violent impact testing, dynamic loading from the vibrations of firing and recoil, or a spring air rifle recoil, but will if you bump it from side seems beyond silly to me.

I am not suprised though when people can't shoot the same zero day in and day out. It's a lot easier to convince them there is some black magic going on in a rifle a scope, then their fundamentals suck. Or that the cheapest rings and base they could buy are moving.

a7gcf2.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: wind gypsy, flogxal and spife7980
#109
supercorndogs said:
How many matches per year you shoot?

A bumpy ride isn't producing the shock forces recoil does.
Click to expand...
Man I don’t know I have seen ATV’s and hard cases in the beds of trucks scramble scopes. A few years ago I saw a Zeiss V6 go into a hard case after verifying out to 1k on a 300 prc and come out of the case after a 15 mile ATV ride with the reticle about 20 degrees off and zero reticle movement when twisting turrets.

Same thing if you don’t have enough tourque (or any locktight) on screws. Recoil may never loosen them but a long day on a ATV and you will be finding the screws in the bottom of the gun case.
 
#110
I think for the very small % of users who might subject their rifle+scope assembly to a 15 mile ATV trip, the better choice is to box the scope + rifle separately and check with the scope mfr on what they'd suggest for isolation packing.

Not ask the scope mfr to redesign everything for such a situation.

And that's assuming the 15 mile ATV trip caused the scope issues. Don't aircraft carrying new boxed scopes from one place to another encounter turbulence? How does your brand new scope not have "lost zero" in the transatlantic or transpacific flight?
 
#111
flogxal said:
I think for the very small % of users who might subject their rifle+scope assembly to a 15 mile ATV trip, the better choice is to box the scope + rifle separately and check with the scope mfr on what they'd suggest for isolation packing.
Click to expand...
You're saying he should (while on a hunt) unmount his scope so it can be transported separately and then reassembled when he gets to each location he wants to hunt in?
flogxal said:
Not ask the scope mfr to redesign everything for such a situation.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is asking for that. They're just using manufacturers that already build their scopes with hard use in mind.
flogxal said:
Don't aircraft carrying new boxed scopes from one place to another encounter turbulence? How does your brand new scope not have "lost zero" in the transatlantic or transpacific flight?
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what a zero is (?)
 
#112
Now you are being picky-pedantic and I would ask if it is just for argument's sake. I think you'd be wiser to ask me about my mechanical experience relative to some "just discovered acting rural and taking up hunting" schmoos on the technomodern hunting forum audience logbook.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Emerson0311
#113
flogxal said:
I think you'd be wiser to ask me about my mechanical experience
Click to expand...
flogxal said:
Don't aircraft carrying new boxed scopes from one place to another encounter turbulence? How does your brand new scope not have "lost zero" in the transatlantic or transpacific flight?
Click to expand...
A new in box scope is not zeroed. So I'm not sure your mechanical experience is giving you valuable insight here.

Edit: I guess if you used the exact same collimator setup as the manufacturer checks with you could technically test its zero after the flight even if it's unmounted but not sure what that's giving us.
 
#114
@supercorndogs is this the scope testing fixture you have been talking about? Perhaps I have missed an additional post on the matter.
www.snipershide.com

Rifle Scopes - Revisiting drop testing

Until someone is testing a statistically significant number of optics (hundreds minimum) in a fully controlled mechanical test with multiple simulated scenarios, drop tests are just a cruel game of RNG. People think about the goal of the testing in the wrong way. It's meant to raise red flags...
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com

I found these impact tests/testing devices/impact protocols. Not exactly sure of some of their providence.

https://mindworks.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Impact_Testing_Device_-_Nightforce_Optics
(someone made a prototype tester for NF?)

(just the first bit, showing the shaker)

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/high-end-optics-torture-test/
(they actually shot the scopes! Birdshot, 22mag lol)

#1 https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/leupold-catching-on-impact-testing-huh.296830/post-2933718
#2 https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/leupold-catching-on-impact-testing-huh.296830/post-2933546
(rokslide; arguments that both NASA and cardboard box manufacturers test in a more real-world manner, i.e. in a way a device would fall/crash)

I guess a scope manufacturer’s test is only as good as how well the test is designed, what impacts are tested, and how well the tests are carried out.

If all the test looks into is CF recoil tracking survivability, or that the lenses don’t shake free, well then that’s what info you’ll get from it.

You can draw inferences from a test like that, but not actual experimental data. That’s why they crash test cars in ways that cars are likely to be hit. They don’t just test an impact from the front and theoretically assume a side impact gives them the same info.

My problem with the rokslide tests is I am a little suspicious of the actors involved. As in, the consistency of the results (both pass and fail) seem a little weird.

Plus last time I checked they haven’t put the effort into building simple rigs (like in my second video I posted) to reduce the human influence. I’m no engineer, but if I were doing tests, I would put some effort into standardizing the tests and removing humans as much as possible. I think the idea of testing all sorts of impact angles has merit.

Heck, maybe some companies already hit windage/elevation turrets, smack parallax knobs, batter objective/eyepieces, etc etc. NF supposedly does something like that, but I don’t fully buy into it as they are a marketing machine.

Remember when in 2020 Frank shared his tracking tests that he performed on student’s scopes that were running through his classes?
www.snipershide.com

Rifle Scopes - 150 Scopes tested, Results Posted !

In the Field Scope Tracking Test As many shooters have read in the Sniper’s Hide Forum, or have heard on the Everyday Sniper Podcast, during our precision rifle classes we removed and test scopes for tracking. The genesis behind this was twofold, first, we used to only accomplish this in our...
www.snipershide.com www.snipershide.com

I do find it fascinating that some scope companies apparently complained to SH/Frank which caused him to stop sharing the data. I hear he still compiles the data but doesn’t share it.

I know Frank’s info isn’t an impact test, but over time, it could’ve been even more interesting nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
#115
flogxal said:
I think for the very small % of users who might subject their rifle+scope assembly to a 15 mile ATV trip, the better choice is to box the scope + rifle separately and check with the scope mfr on what they'd suggest for isolation packing.

Not ask the scope mfr to redesign everything for such a situation.

And that's assuming the 15 mile ATV trip caused the scope issues. Don't aircraft carrying new boxed scopes from one place to another encounter turbulence? How does your brand new scope not have "lost zero" in the transatlantic or transpacific flight?
Click to expand...
For some of us we have rifles that ride around in ATVs, trucks, tractors, etc on a daily basis. A fifteen mile atv ride is just a part of life and nothing out of the ordinary. A scope should be able to survive that if the mounting system is in order, its not an extreme situation. I believe this thread has shown there is a fundamental difference how optics/rifles are employed by different users that affects how they are looking at the data within these Rokslide test. Some see it as an abnormal extreme use type scenario, others its more "normal" ....... luckily we have lots of optics to choose from and can decide what works best for our own uses.
 
Last edited:
#116
flogxal said:
I think for the very small % of users who might subject their rifle+scope assembly to a 15 mile ATV trip, the better choice is to box the scope + rifle separately and check with the scope mfr on what they'd suggest for isolation packing.

Not ask the scope mfr to redesign everything for such a situation.

And that's assuming the 15 mile ATV trip caused the scope issues. Don't aircraft carrying new boxed scopes from one place to another encounter turbulence? How does your brand new scope not have "lost zero" in the transatlantic or transpacific flight?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what else would have caused it? Rifle went into case after dialing perfect out to 1k, case went onto ATV, rifle was pulled out with reticle in a X position in relation to the turrets.

A 15 mile ride is nothing, a few weeks ago I rode over 300 miles of horrible roads In a couple days. Numerous scopes have held up fine to that for years, others lose zero relatively fast when subjected to it.
 
#117
NateVA said:
A new in box scope is not zeroed. So I'm not sure your mechanical experience is giving you valuable insight here.

Edit: I guess if you used the exact same collimator setup as the manufacturer checks with you could technically test its zero after the flight even if it's unmounted but not sure what that's giving us.
Click to expand...
You really don't want to tread this path with me little guy. Seriously.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NateVA
#119
[A pet peeve, mixed with speculation:]

It annoys me to remove a scope turret and see an excessive quantity of grease under it. The required amount of grease, for the function of the turret, is a nearly invisible quantity. Speculating then, it makes me wonder if there is, also, an excessive quantity of grease elsewhere inside of that scope. Again speculating, if some small amount of grease were interposed between the screw driven turret centers and the outside of the erector tube, when the erector tube is 'bounced' out-of-contact with the elevation and windage centers, when the inertial force from a drop impact exceeds the spring pre-load force, would the pre-load spring return the erector tube to actual contact with the turret centers? (Each 'click' of a turret is a small fraction of a thousandth-of-an-inch movement.) When I dropped my handful of hunting rifles, I didn't find any significant zero shifts (independent of problems with rings and rails) when I spun the scope turrets up-and-back and right-and-back a few times before shooting groups.
 
Last edited:
#120
flogxal said:
I think for the very small % of users who might subject their rifle+scope assembly to a 15 mile ATV trip, the better choice is to box the scope + rifle separately and check with the scope mfr on what they'd suggest for isolation packing.

Not ask the scope mfr to redesign everything for such a situation.

And that's assuming the 15 mile ATV trip caused the scope issues. Don't aircraft carrying new boxed scopes from one place to another encounter turbulence? How does your brand new scope not have "lost zero" in the transatlantic or transpacific flight?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? 15 miles of bumpy roads/trails is too much to expect of the thing that we rely on to aim a rifle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirtytough and Jadazu
#121
The "problem" with drop tests is the profile. It is typically 1-2 big shocks from 1 direction then another as the scope rebounds and strikes again. The ATV ride is a multi-axis near constant vibration of varying profiles (suspension to chassis impact impulses, engine to chassis harmonics, etc). If you want a scope that's going to handle things like an ATV ride, I suggest a Nightforce or someone else who tests high-g side impact, etc. Also as stated, loctite, although on ring screws I contend that this is debated because the rebound of the scope tube wall acts like a helicoil/spring loaded washer maintaining tension on the threads which exceed the profile of the vibration encountered, typically, but then, belt and suspenders...
 
#122
Asking a rifle/scope combo to not loose zero from traveling 30 plus miles of bad road is not a big ask. I would suggest you put it in some sort of case that is padded to help if you don’t already do so

I don’t see how anyone who has left there porch could consider removing the scope from
The rifle as a viable alternative. It’s a hunting system and that will cause more problems than the rough road
 
#123
MikeMiller said:
Asking a rifle/scope combo to not loose zero from traveling 30 plus miles of bad road is not a big ask. I would suggest you put it in some sort of case that is padded to help if you don’t already do so

I don’t see how anyone who has left there porch could consider removing the scope from
The rifle as a viable alternative. It’s a hunting system and that will cause more problems than the rough road
Click to expand...
I agree its not a big ask, qnd i have seen lots of scopes do it my life, but According to some of these guys they have seen wild zero shifts from such drives. My scopes are generally with in .1 mil after remove and reinstall of the scope.
 
#124
supercorndogs said:
I agree its not a big ask, qnd i have seen lots of scopes do it my life, but According to some of these guys they have seen wild zero shifts from such drives. My scopes are generally with in .1 mil after remove and reinstall of the scope.
Click to expand...
Understood. My reason for not removing is many times when I hunted I would see something while driving and jump out to stalk it. I would hate to try put scope on before going in the bush
 
#127
supercorndogs said:
None of those are a miss on a deer or elk from 600y.

Not knowing anything about what those were shot with, how, or by who. With out any of that context. I don't see what the point is.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Most are guys trying to dial their zero in. What looks like a shitty group is actually refining zero, testing zero and shooting at different aiming points. What you see on a zero board at a match means absolutely nothing.
 
#128
Eric1115 said:
Can you expand on this? What is it about the way the evals are done that indicates that to you?

I believe this is pretty well controlled for if I understand you correctly. The rifle gets a 20+ round group to establish true group size, zeroed with a 10 round group, and a shift must be outside the 20 round cone to count. With a lot of the scopes, the shifts are a full mil or more on a rifle that shoots 20 shots into a .5 mil group.
Click to expand...
Most of us don’t trust anyone who makes $$$ on clicks. In addition, we know from our own experience, that many shooters are imprecise, narrow minded, and often very poor shooters mechanically. They use small sample sizes and do not control reliably for many variables. Often they are completely unaware of significant variables. Therefore the conclusions they provide are of limited usefulness.

There are several “testers” here that do write books and have impeccable credentials of education and experience. Also their livelihood comes from working in the industry. We tend to trust them more than others.
 
#129
Emerson0311 said:
Also their livelihood comes from working in the industry. We tend to trust them more than others.
Click to expand...
That makes me more skeptical of anything they say. Just as I'm skeptical of gun reviewers with relationships with gun companies.

Vortex is a sponsor on Rokslide, and their scopes still get hammered in the testing. As far as I can tell, Nightforce/Trijicon/SWFA have no relationship with Rokslide at all even though the testing tends to be good for them. One of the Revic scopes recently got tested and passed, despite the CEO of Gunwerks (which owns Revic) publicly bashing the Rokslide droptesting. I'm not discounting the possibility of the testers being biased but it certainly doesn't seem to be a form of bias that makes them money.
 
#130
MikeMiller said:
Understood. My reason for not removing is many times when I hunted I would see something while driving and jump out to stalk it. I would hate to try put scope on before going in the bush
Click to expand...
I was just being a smart ass. I am not gonna remove my scope to run around on a side by side or 4 wheeler. I carry them in a soft case as it's supposed to be in a case on an atv in colorado.
 
#131
NateVA said:
That makes me more skeptical of anything they say. Just as I'm skeptical of gun reviewers with relationships with gun companies.

Vortex is a sponsor on Rokslide, and their scopes still get hammered in the testing. As far as I can tell, Nightforce/Trijicon/SWFA have no relationship with Rokslide at all even though the testing tends to be good for them. One of the Revic scopes recently got tested and passed, despite the CEO of Gunwerks (which owns Revic) publicly bashing the Rokslide droptesting. I'm not discounting the possibility of the testers being biased but it certainly doesn't seem to be a form of bias that makes them money.
Click to expand...
Being skeptical of an expert because they make money in the industry...🤣🤣🤣 Thats reaching real fucking deep for excuses. 🤣🤣
 
#132
supercorndogs said:
Being skeptical of an expert because they make money in the industry...🤣🤣🤣 Thats reaching real fucking deep for excuses. 🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Frank had pressure from multiple optics manufacturers to stop publishing his tracking tests and I think people said he did end up stopping. I guess you think that was a unique situation for him and that sort of thing doesn't happen to other people in the industry?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wind gypsy
#133
I did my rough terrain driving in old leaf spring on all four corners Jeep. I used hard case with lots of foam because the hunting scopes I used in 80/90’s would f up if left on floor.
supercorndogs said:
I was just being a smart ass. I am not gonna remove my scope to run around on a side by side or 4 wheeler. I carry them in a soft case as it's supposed to be in a case on an atv in colorado.
Click to expand...
no worries. It did not sound like something you would do

On experts. I worked for several rifle and scope company in the past. Lots of TxE. Work. The hardest thing I had to learn was saying “ I don’t know”. Once you accept you can’t know everything you learn so much more. Many “experts” can’t accept they don’t know everything
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wind gypsy
#134
NateVA said:
My bad big dog. Didn't know you were an operator/engineer with 300 confirmed kills.
Click to expand...
Your childish attempt to Bear Pit this thread just underscores your microman status, little guy. You don't want to argue with me on a topic where you are the dimwit, but if you persist, I'll make you redfaced.
 
  • Wow
  • Haha
Reactions: dirtytough and NateVA
#135
NateVA said:
Frank had pressure from multiple optics manufacturers to stop publishing his tracking tests and I think people said he did end up stopping. I guess you think that was a unique situation for him and that sort of thing doesn't happen to other people in the industry?
Click to expand...
I'm an absolute nobody and I've had companies pressure me over things before. Absolutely believable.
 
#138
DeathBeforeDismount said:
Exactly. Most are guys trying to dial their zero in. What looks like a shitty group is actually refining zero, testing zero and shooting at different aiming points. What you see on a zero board at a match means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
My first 10 shots after cleaning are just fired at the board. Sometimes in the dirt. There is no attempt at a group until the velocity stabilizes.

Sometimes Ill even dial up or down a few tenths to avoid another group or keep the aim point clear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeathBeforeDismount
#139
supercorndogs said:
Let's see your proof and hear your stories.
Click to expand...
I won't comment on current/recent events, but Noveske asked an attorney to reach out to me as a favor to them. He ended up taking my side and got my rifle replaced, Noveske couldn't deliver by the time I moved (SBR), and I wasnt holding up a move for it, so they cut me a check, and I have no issues further with them.

Fireclean subpoena'ed me as well as threatened me via DM over my product evals.

There have been others.

I have ruffled some feathers with my channel as well, but no overt threats.
 
Last edited:
#140
Unobtanium said:
I won't comment on current/recent events, but Noveske asked an attorney to reach out to me as a favor to them. He ended up taking my side and got my rifle replaced, Noveske couldn't deliver by the time I moved (SBR), and I wasnt holding up a move for it, so they cut me a check, and I have no issues further with them.

Fireclean subpoena'ed me as well as threatened me via DM over my product evals.

There have been others.

I have ruffled some feathers with my channel as well, but no overt threats.
Click to expand...

A company supenoa and threaten you. 😳 What was the threat?
 
#146
People make up stories online every day.

Supenoas are issued to people who are not party to a case. I.E witnesses and such.

Asking someone to testify or present evidence and threaten to sue them for what they are saying and doing. 🤔 Now that seems weird. 🤣🤣🤣

Volunteer lawyers. No comentary needed. 🤣🤣🤣
 
#147
supercorndogs said:
People make up stories online every day.

Supenoas are issued to people who are not party to a case. I.E witnesses and such.

Asking someone to testify or present evidence and threaten to sue them for what they are saying and doing. 🤔 Now that seems weird. 🤣🤣🤣

Volunteer lawyers. No comentary needed. 🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...
A few friends kept me out of it as a favor, and they settled for a subpoena and a few nasty DMs.

As to Noveske, they didnt threaten, they had an attorney reach out and we had a conversation and they handled it. No bad blood with them after that resolution.

You must be extremely bored to go out of your way to dig for more on such a banal account of events from years ago.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: supercorndogs
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Mark 4hd tracking issue
Replies
111
Views
5K
ThatHKMarksman
ThatHKMarksman
M
Wet Mounting Scope Mounts - Where It All Started
Replies
212
Views
14K
Tier1nub
Tier1nub
GuideDog
DNT 7-35x56 FFP not holding zero
Replies
51
Views
2K
ohlongarm
O
Maggot
Optics Sold-Zeiss 6x36x56 mil/mil
Replies
5
Views
621
quintcarney
quintcarney
1
Rifle Scopes Swarovski Z5i+ information
Replies
22
Views
2K
Ikeman83
I
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts