Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Scope field evaluations on rokslide
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bob Wright" data-source="post: 2961606" data-attributes="member: 104363"><p>Hats off to the tester(s) at RS for doing the best test available to them at considerable cost in time and ammo.</p><p>If one draws conclusions from this test methodology alone you're not getting the whole picture. It's simply a pass/ fail.</p><p>Not how did it fail. Rings, bases, erector, parallax, etc.</p><p>Everyone on here has experiences in a drop "test" of some accident or just the scope broke, bent, bases/rings came loose. On and on.</p><p>No one has about 10 million bucks laying around to perform repeatable/instrumented vibe, shock testing to failure and find out what 'exactly' failed out of 50+ parts in the test</p><p>The machines to test this stuff can most likely shear bases and 8-32 screws and dowell pins clean off a receiver just doing shock testing in a diabolical way, testing to complete failure. Or something just to study how parts become loose/worn over years of time, compressed into days in test.</p><p>I can pick apart the testing methods that RS did because of this or that but honestly, it's all they had, or I would have, in my shop or in the field.</p><p>It's inconclusive to me other than something went wrong somewhere in point of impact shift, or it passed. There are no "why or what" exactly failed to my satisfaction. But that's just me. Others will differ.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bob Wright, post: 2961606, member: 104363"] Hats off to the tester(s) at RS for doing the best test available to them at considerable cost in time and ammo. If one draws conclusions from this test methodology alone you're not getting the whole picture. It's simply a pass/ fail. Not how did it fail. Rings, bases, erector, parallax, etc. Everyone on here has experiences in a drop "test" of some accident or just the scope broke, bent, bases/rings came loose. On and on. No one has about 10 million bucks laying around to perform repeatable/instrumented vibe, shock testing to failure and find out what 'exactly' failed out of 50+ parts in the test The machines to test this stuff can most likely shear bases and 8-32 screws and dowell pins clean off a receiver just doing shock testing in a diabolical way, testing to complete failure. Or something just to study how parts become loose/worn over years of time, compressed into days in test. I can pick apart the testing methods that RS did because of this or that but honestly, it's all they had, or I would have, in my shop or in the field. It's inconclusive to me other than something went wrong somewhere in point of impact shift, or it passed. There are no "why or what" exactly failed to my satisfaction. But that's just me. Others will differ. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Scope field evaluations on rokslide
Top