• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes So, I threw my Arken off the shooting platform...

E

eyekahn

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 2, 2012
745
680
37
Made a video. I'm no content creator but wanted to document it.

900m impact. Throw scope off shooting platform about 25ft down the hard packed dirt hill. Install optic again. Impact 900m. Plate is 1/2 IPSC

This was the second time I did this test. First time was on paper. There was no shift. Not even .1mrad.

Nothing broken or dented. Just some sand in the parallax knob and a few scrapes.

I'd say EP5 is GTG.

And so is the OBR mount.

Just as a disclaimer since Arken is very triggering apparently.

I did this just for the hell of it I'm no Arken fan boy nor ambassador. Just wanted to see what this thing was all about because of all the controversy it seems to be creating. It's not an ATACR or TT, obviously!

Just showing that it didn't bust into 1000 pieces or lose its zero from a substantial impact.

Edited title since people can't understand that 25ft can also mean out not down.

 

Attachments

  • 72090135258__9E250A2A-CBF2-482B-9ED8-8F2004EC7C74.jpeg
    72090135258__9E250A2A-CBF2-482B-9ED8-8F2004EC7C74.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 185
  • IMG_2995.jpeg
    IMG_2995.jpeg
    775.1 KB · Views: 192
  • IMG_2999.jpeg
    IMG_2999.jpeg
    436.1 KB · Views: 186
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jayhawkhuntclub, Keith E., Redlion and 7 others
Birddog6424 said:
That's gotta be one of the dumbest scope tests I've ever seen 🤣
Click to expand...
Why's that? It took two massive impacts and kept its zero.

Do you have a better way to check to see if an optic will hold zero or take a big hit and not break?
 
Pfft, you should have had someone cut the tower legs while you were on the platform. Then you could add your body weight to the gun and scope. That would have been a real test.

I think that's a solid test man. I doubt it will ever see anything harder than a 25' drop under normal use.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Bluedog82, sjmpcc022, TheHebrewHammer and 6 others
Birddog6424 said:
Yes, I have a better way.

Invest in an optic you don't have to test.
Click to expand...
I didn't have to test anything. I did it just because I wanted to see if it would shift. I've had 4 different atacrs on this rifle it's not about investing in a higher end optic. It's about seeing if this budget one can handle the abuse like a high end can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pronghunter, GhostFace, Gwak2006 and 3 others
I get it, sometimes we just want to test the limits of things. It reminds me of the time this one idiot years ago dragged his S&B behind his Jeep, submerged it in water, hammered tent stakes with it, etc....at the end of the day the scope was fine though.
 
eyekahn said:
I didn't have to test anything. I did it just because I wanted to see if it would shift. I've had 4 different atacrs on this rifle it's not about investing in a higher end optic. It's about seeing if this budget one can handle the abuse like a high end can.
Click to expand...

Well calling the test stupid was rude, and I apologize for that.

But testing of this nature doesn't make sense to me. And it's rarely productive. The cheap scopes we "expect" to fail, usually do, and no one is surprised. A decent scope will hold it together, but we still don't learn anything. You could toss it ten times without effect and then knock it out of zero hitting your door frame pulling it out of your pickup. All scopes can fail. And it's usually an innocuous event that causes it.

It's just too narrow a test parameter to truly be informative. Just my two bits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHebrewHammer, kthomas, PappyM3 and 2 others
Trigger Monkey said:
I get it, sometimes we just want to test the limits of things. It reminds me of the time this one idiot years ago dragged his S&B behind his Jeep, submerged it in water, hammered tent stakes with it, etc....at the end of the day the scope was fine though.
Click to expand...
It was extreme but I wanted to see if it would hold. The CA is about the only thing on this optic that is a turn off. Wish they would just narrow the FOV so it's not so pronounced around the edges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charmingmander and Bcamos
Birddog6424 said:
Well calling the test stupid was rude, and I apologize for that.

But testing of this nature doesn't make sense to me. And it's rarely productive. The cheap scopes we "expect" to fail, usually do, and no one is surprised. A decent scope will hold it together, but we still don't learn anything. You could toss it ten times without effect and then knock it out of zero hitting your door frame pulling it out of your pickup. All scopes can fail. And it's usually an innocuous event that causes it.

It's just too narrow a test parameter to truly be informative. Just my two bits.
Click to expand...
One would expect a <$500 Chinese made optic to bust into pieces if it dropped 5ft or had it's zero shift 5ft with such an impact.

Seeing the optic not even be phased by the two large impacts was a big surprise.

I bought this optic for the hell of it just to see for myself what the hype was about.

I just sold the 5-25 H59 atacr on this rifle back in march and couldn't decide on what optic to top it with next. So I got this on a whim just to mess around with, then throw on a B14R.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankengrendel, Ronws and Birddog6424
Compared to other wacky shit I've seen people do to scopes, throwing one off a tower is pretty tame. Years ago when Vortex released the Razor 5-20 Frank blew one up with tannerite, it was dragged through a muddy pond, probably thrown from the tower too, I can't remember. Nightforce froze one of their scopes and shot it with a shotgun, then hammered some stuff with it. USO used to show pics of one of their tubes breaking off concrete pavers and hammering nails and at least one customer videoed themselves throwing their USO all over God's creation too.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Charmingmander, GhostFace, Bcamos and 1 other person
I will agree this really isn't a good test of the durability of the optic. I have tree stands 25' in the air and watching your height in relative to the platform I don't think you mean 25' vertical. Did you mean 25' horizontal?
Throw that scope out the ATV at 25mph on a gravel road and report back.

I think pretty much any scope could handle that "test" pretty good.

ETA: I think the title is sensationalist/Misnomer/Click bait designed to attract attention. Open it and its all goo. Ok, I'm done.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FuhQ
FredHammer said:
I will agree this really isn't a good test of the durability of the optic. I have tree stands 25' in the air and watching your height in relative to the platform I don't think you mean 25' vertical. Did you mean 25' horizontal?
Throw that scope out the ATV at 25mph on a gravel road and report back.

I think pretty much any scope could handle that "test" pretty good.
Click to expand...
Yes. 25ft from the platform. Was probably a 8-10ft vertical drop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FredHammer
At first I thought you were elevated 25 and it was a drop straight down. It's an interesting test. I think it would be more abusive if it were a vertical drop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FredHammer
To put your “test” into science that scope falling 25’ generates 61.25 ft lbs of energy. That would be a vertical fall which your test was not so that’s probably a lot more than it actually absorbed. In reality it’s probably more like 10’ at most which is what you said your platform is at on the high end which would be 24.52 ft lbs.

The rifle estimated at 16lbs falling just 2’ would generate 32.04 ft lbs.

Do you see why this test was stupid and meaningless?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charmingmander and Maurygold
eyekahn said:
Some people like cucumbers better pickled.

Reticle worked fine for me at 1006m.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting, definitely interesting. Not everyone can afford 2k+ optics so there needs to be options if the shooting sports are going to grow. I wouldn't do what you did but I applaud your effort and sharing your results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tchitcherine
redneckbmxer24 said:
To put your “test” into science that scope falling 25’ generates 61.25 ft lbs of energy. That would be a vertical fall which your test was not so that’s probably a lot more than it actually absorbed. In reality it’s probably more like 10’ at most which is what you said your platform is at on the high end which would be 24.52 ft lbs.

The rifle estimated at 16lbs falling just 2’ would generate 32.04 ft lbs.

Do you see why this test was stupid and meaningless?
Click to expand...
Does that calculate the speed at which the scope was traveling since I didn't just let gravity take it down and actually threw it? 2lbs dropped at 10ft only equates to 20ftlbs when it's dropped not thrown. Since we do not know the speed or let's call it velocity at which the scope was traveling it would be pretty tough to know the exact calculation of energy which was delivered to the optic.

Man y'all are wild.

If I dropped it straight down 50ft y'all would say it needs to be 100ft. If I threw it at 20mph y'all would say it needs to be 40mph. If it hit dirt y'all would say it needs to land on concrete.

Just take the video for what it is. No one is throwing their optic 25ft out and 10ft down

Let's say you drop your rifle out of the stand at 20ft onto grass. It lands butt pad down. The optic does not take the brunt of the force. The rifle does and the energy is transferred to the optic via the rings or mount. Which then would most likely slide or shift the optic in the rings not testing the strength of the tube or internals really at all.

Or better yet the 16lb rifle lands perfectly flat on all 4ft. That energy is dispersed evenly across all 4ft of the mass not all consolidated into just the optic.

The test isn't scientific so why try and make it like that. I just threw the damn thing to see if it would shift. That's it.

The optic landed directly on the ground hit random shit on the ground and tumbled down the hill.

This isn't myth busters or OG TacTV. I just thought it would be good to see if the optic could take an impact.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: obx22, Charmingmander, KiloGolf and 5 others
That's child's play. I dropped mine onto concrete from shoulder level, while attached to my Anschutz. It landed on the parallax knob.

The battery cover was scratched, but that's it.
The rifle stock was much worse for wear.


They are what my budget allows, so I have a few of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PappyM3 and Hecouldgoalltheway
eyekahn said:
Does that calculate the speed at which the scope was traveling since I didn't just let gravity take it down and actually threw it? 2lbs dropped at 10ft only equates to 20ftlbs when it's dropped not thrown. Since we do not know the speed or let's call it velocity at which the scope was traveling it would be pretty tough to know the exact calculation of energy which was delivered to the optic.

Man y'all are wild.

If I dropped it straight down 50ft y'all would say it needs to be 100ft. If I threw it at 20mph y'all would say it needs to be 40mph. If it hit dirt y'all would say it needs to land on concrete.

Just take the video for what it is. No one is throwing their optic 25ft out and 10ft down

Let's say you drop your rifle out of the stand at 20ft onto grass. It lands butt pad down. The optic does not take the brunt of the force. The rifle does and the energy is transferred to the optic via the rings or mount. Which then would most likely slide or shift the optic in the rings not testing the strength of the tube or internals really at all.

Or better yet the 16lb rifle lands perfectly flat on all 4ft. That energy is dispersed evenly across all 4ft of the mass not all consolidated into just the optic.

The test isn't scientific so why try and make it like that. I just threw the damn thing to see if it would shift. That's it.

The optic landed directly on the ground hit random shit on the ground and tumbled down the hill.

This isn't myth busters or OG TacTV. I just thought it would be good to see if the optic could take an impact.
Click to expand...

That’s the problem with your test, there’s zero data driven science behind it. Just a cage man tossing a scope around to prove nothing. The fact it’s not even attached to a rifle which is the heaviest component also defies any logic behind it because that’s usually attached.

River44 said:
Someone’s got more money than brains
Click to expand...

Owning an Arken suggests otherwise.
 
eyekahn said:
Does that calculate the speed at which the scope was traveling since I didn't just let gravity take it down and actually threw it? 2lbs dropped at 10ft only equates to 20ftlbs when it's dropped not thrown. Since we do not know the speed or let's call it velocity at which the scope was traveling it would be pretty tough to know the exact calculation of energy which was delivered to the optic.

Man y'all are wild.

If I dropped it straight down 50ft y'all would say it needs to be 100ft. If I threw it at 20mph y'all would say it needs to be 40mph. If it hit dirt y'all would say it needs to land on concrete.

Just take the video for what it is. No one is throwing their optic 25ft out and 10ft down

Let's say you drop your rifle out of the stand at 20ft onto grass. It lands butt pad down. The optic does not take the brunt of the force. The rifle does and the energy is transferred to the optic via the rings or mount. Which then would most likely slide or shift the optic in the rings not testing the strength of the tube or internals really at all.

Or better yet the 16lb rifle lands perfectly flat on all 4ft. That energy is dispersed evenly across all 4ft of the mass not all consolidated into just the optic.

The test isn't scientific so why try and make it like that. I just threw the damn thing to see if it would shift. That's it.

The optic landed directly on the ground hit random shit on the ground and tumbled down the hill.

This isn't myth busters or OG TacTV. I just thought it would be good to see if the optic could take an impact.
Click to expand...
When even @redneckbmxer24 makes total sense and shows your test was garbage, that fucking means something! :LOL:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Charmingmander, MarshallDodge and FuhQ
redneckbmxer24 said:
That’s the problem with your test, there’s zero data driven science behind it. Just a cage man tossing a scope around to prove nothing. The fact it’s not even attached to a rifle which is the heaviest component also defies any logic behind it because that’s usually attached.



Owning an Arken suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...
Lol, your trying to make way more of this than what it is.

Yea owning an Arken automatically makes you a poor right? Don't mind the $6k rifle it's attached to. Or the $7k rifle laying next to it.

Anyways, my cave man test was just a way to show that the Arken is cave man approved.

Didn't mean to get Ryan Nyquist all riled up.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 308pirate and Bcamos
DLS said:
I saw an Arken fail twice today in our monthly match. Guy thought he had it fixed after turret started slipping… so he did a quick rezero but two stages later it slipped again.
Click to expand...
What fixes that is vibra tite in the set screw threads. Some suggest that cheap milling is causing it to let go. And other scopes, such as some NF models had similar problems.

I think it is because of the design of that kind of turret. That is, not a QC problem for Arken but a design problem and also how much time and effort to spend on the metal and threading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charmingmander, 308pirate, TheMammoth and 2 others
Ronws said:
What fixes that is vibra tite in the set screw threads. Some suggest that cheap milling is causing it to let go. And other scopes, such as some NF models had similar problems.

I think it is because of the design of that kind of turret. That is, not a QC problem for Arken but a design problem and also how much time and effort to spend on the metal and threading.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I have two EP4's, a 6-24x and 4-16x. A very small shot of blue locktite and the set screws will never budge without your help. I've got a few hundred rounds on each and they've been superb.
 
TheMammoth said:
Good grief that amount of failures this fella has gotten is NUTS.

I'm glad I am an ATACR enjoyer lol
Click to expand...
Yup. A ZCO failed after one drop at 3ft. Yet an Arken I just threw had no shift.

I would most likely attribute the shift in most drop tests to the rings.

People hate on Larue but they are the best mount IMO.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Triple D
eyekahn said:
Yup. A ZCO failed after one drop at 3ft. Yet an Arken I just threw had no shift.

I would most likely attribute the shift in most drop tests to the rings.

People hate on Larue but they are the best mount IMO.
Click to expand...

At least that ZCO was actually attached to a rifle...

I would love to see you redo this by dropping the scope an rifle together at least 10 feet, scope down, as it would likely fall if you accidentally knocked the rig off of a platform.

And Larue mounts have 2 problems. The vertically split rings can screw with the internal mechanisms of some scopes (because they are designed with horizontally split rings in mind), and the Larue QD system will mar the crap out of some picatinny rails when installed properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMammoth
eyekahn said:
Yup. A ZCO failed after one drop at 3ft. Yet an Arken I just threw had no shift.

I would most likely attribute the shift in most drop tests to the rings.

People hate on Larue but they are the best mount IMO.
Click to expand...
There is a history of larue having problems. There is a history of that here.
 
  • Haha
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: TurdFerguson, Charmingmander, GhostFace and 5 others
Tx_Aggie said:
At least that ZCO was actually attached to a rifle...

I would love to see you redo this by dropping the scope an rifle together at least 10 feet, scope down, as it would likely fall if you accidentally knocked the rig off of a platform.

And Larue mounts have 2 problems. The vertically split rings can screw with the internal mechanisms of some scopes (because they are designed with horizontally split rings in mind), and the Larue QD system will mar the crap out of some picatinny rails when installed properly.
Click to expand...
An OBR mount does not use vertically split rings.

Maybe the mount mars the receiver because it latches on so tightly????? I'd rather have something tight than pretty.

Once again this is an optic test not a weapon system test.

Why would the rifle always land scope down?
 
eyekahn said:
An OBR mount does not use vertically split rings.

Maybe the mount mars the receiver because it latches on so tightly????? I'd rather have something tight than pretty.

Once again this is an optic test not a weapon system test.

Why would the rifle always land scope down?
Click to expand...
I've been back and forth on the "tight vs pretty" arguement. Personality can be a factor too......... oh, wait. Nevermind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyekahn
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
300 PRC
Replies
145
Views
28K
rustyinbend
rustyinbend
D
Hunting & Fishing My Nebraska Deer Season...so far.
Replies
2
Views
616
DropZone
D
srv656s
Rifle Scopes So let's say I drop my NXS scope... (I did)
Replies
17
Views
3K
ChadTRG42
ChadTRG42
TresMon
Secret Houston Warehouse (End-all Accuracy)
Replies
15
Views
3K
gallonoffuel
G
Top Bottom
Back