Rifle Scopes Blinded, Randomized scope testing

db2000 · Monday at 9:00 AM

With all the vastly varying anecdotal reports of IQ between scopes, I think a blinded, randomized controlled trial of scopes would be very interesting. Because there’s some degree of objectivity and methodology in evaluating IQ, I think this could be very revealing.
Bias seems to be one of the greatest influences on individuals as far as I can tell. Whether conscious or subconscious, it can be hard to admit a $600 scope is optically close to a $4k scope.
Just like some people taste soap with cilantro or prefer different flavors than others, I believe vision is the same way. This may be obvious to some folks but it’s definitely not accepted main stream because people continue to argue to the point of insults (myself included

) over IQ of scopes. In contrast, most everyone is in agreement that scope features are subjective, so no need to try and examine that. The test could be standardized to be blinded. It would take some effort but certainly doable. A way to make diopter, magnification and parallax adjustments without fingering the scope. The trial would need to include a professional eye examination and history as well obviously.

RTH1800 · Monday at 9:02 AM

Far more to a scope than glass.

Rob01 · Monday at 9:08 AM

Total waste of time and effort to prove something that will not be proven or agreed upon. Buy the scope you like and use it.

beetroot · Monday at 9:44 AM

Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary & Overall Scores

This is the executive summary and overall scores from an epic scope field test focused on long-range...

precisionrifleblog.com

10 years old now, but this style of test has been done before, so could be done again.

But as Rob eluded to, would be a lot of effort to go to for little gain.
Anyone who knew enough about scopes to judge optically quality will probably be able to guess the scope based off the reticle, so ot be very hard to do a truely blind test.

Convex · Monday at 10:10 AM

Used to read reviews about a car I lusted after and how it was so much better if you spent another 10 grand on a performance tune boosting the engine up another 100 hp, and honestly spent a lot of time trying to talk myself into buying the car and springing for the expensive upgrade.

Revisiting the spec on the difference in 0-60 times for the car with/without the expensive upgrade was a difference of 2/10ths of a second, and of course in my old age/retirement the logic "10 grand for 2/10ths of a second, fuck that" won out.

Before I retired and could renew my money quickly blowing that kind of money didn't hurt so bad, but in a way, having to be careful kind of makes you grow up re your purchases.

My wife doesn't have my OCD so she is my conscious and has saved me buying a boatload of gear I didn't really need. Like when I was walking out of Home Depot, and I've already got 6 hand drills (I think) but I start to slow down around the sales stand w/the new drills and "keep going" is whispered softly in my ear.

My wife already knows how many hand drills I got because she uses 'em.

Unless you're rich, sooner or later, you gotta grow up.

Of course even rich guys start to feel real pain when they think they can change out their women every 2 years.

db2000 · Monday at 10:36 AM

beetroot said:
Tactical Scopes: Field Test Results Summary & Overall Scores

This is the executive summary and overall scores from an epic scope field test focused on long-range...

precisionrifleblog.com

10 years old now, but this style of test has been done before, so could be done again.

But as Rob eluded to, would be a lot of effort to go to for little gain.
Anyone who knew enough about scopes to judge optically quality will probably be able to guess the scope based off the reticle, so ot be very hard to do a truely blind test.

Good point on the reticle. I guess potentially there’s examiners from other types of optics that potentially would not but who knows.

db2000 · Monday at 10:39 AM

Rob01 said:
Total waste of time and effort to prove something that will not be proven or agreed upon. Buy the scope you like and use it.

It’s called research. Not trying to “prove” anything. If fact, certainly not trying to organize the experiment either. Just making discussion on a discussion board. Thanks for your opinion.

supercorndogs · Monday at 4:45 PM

Another problem is going to be the range of IQ in a particular scope. Just because you get two of the same modle doesn't mean they will be the same.

TheHorta · Monday at 4:51 PM

All these elite glass snobs are afraid of the truth. If that ever happened it would confirm what many of us already know — #Barska-is-Best

db2000 · Monday at 5:03 PM

TheHorta said:
All these elite glass snobs are afraid of the truth. If that ever happened it would confirm what many of us already know — #Barska-is-Best

Whatever happened to you trading me that HISS for my Super Yoter. You pinky promised

FuhQ · Monday at 7:46 PM

db2000 said:
With all the vastly varying anecdotal reports of IQ between scopes, I think a blinded, randomized controlled trial of scopes would be very interesting. Because there’s some degree of objectivity and methodology in evaluating IQ, I think this could be very revealing.
Bias seems to be one of the greatest influences on individuals as far as I can tell. Whether conscious or subconscious, it can be hard to admit a $600 scope is optically close to a $4k scope.
Just like some people taste soap with cilantro or prefer different flavors than others, I believe vision is the same way. This may be obvious to some folks but it’s definitely not accepted main stream because people continue to argue to the point of insults (myself included ) over IQ of scopes. In contrast, most everyone is in agreement that scope features are subjective, so no need to try and examine that. The test could be standardized to be blinded. It would take some effort but certainly doable. A way to make diopter, magnification and parallax adjustments without fingering the scope. The trial would need to include a professional eye examination and history as well obviously.

So, you want to build a wall with just the very back rubber piece of the objective sticking through, so you can't see anything forward of that... Sort of like a glory hole for scopes? "The Scory Hole"?

FuhQ · Monday at 7:55 PM

TheHorta said:
All these elite glass snobs are afraid of the truth. If that ever happened it would confirm what many of us already know — #Barska-is-Best

Fuck that... I'll call your Barska and raise you Quigley-Ford... How much concrete can you work?

hafejd30 · Monday at 7:56 PM

Way more to a scope than simply how it looks through the glass

Personally I’m one that would give up glass for reliability

Then there’s size, reticle, illumination, zoom range etc etc that factor in on which scope is “better” for the user

Plus why waste all that effort when NF ATACR will dominate anyways

koshkin · Tuesday at 2:23 AM

Image quality can be objectively measured. All you need to do is pony up some cash for the right equipment and training so that you can measure away. Now, depending on what exactly you want to measure, you are looking at mid-to-high five figures and on up from there for a turnkey test station.

PRB test was a valiant effort that came crashing down because he did not know what he was doing as fa as evaluations go.

ILya

Emerson0311 · Tuesday at 8:49 AM

The interesting thing about high end tools is that as the skill of the user grows, different features and specific performance attributes rise and fall on the priority list. The folks simping for $600 units over $3K+ units usually do not have a use for the small but significant advantages the top end gear offers. They don’t even understand what those advantages are. The more I build skill and experience with really good tools, the more I become aware of all my errors in skill and use. A basic task only “needs” a basic tool, but high performance users can get a lot more out of a top end tool.

Convex · Tuesday at 10:01 AM

koshkin said:
Image quality can be objectively measured. All you need to do is pony up some cash for the right equipment and training so that you can measure away. Now, depending on what exactly you want to measure, you are looking at mid-to-high five figures and on up from there for a turnkey test station.

PRB test was a valiant effort that came crashing down because he did not know what he was doing as fa as evaluations go.

ILya

Correct me if I'm wrong but you can blow that on just a collimator alone!?

Again your brain adjusts to however bad your vision becomes. In the month the between surgery for both eyes, I was utterly shocked comparing what I could see with what I previously thought wasn't that bad but could then see how it was almost fog coming thru my left eye after the surgery on my rt.

And to make matters worse, I had a differing amount of astigmatism so I was having more and more trouble setting up my focus (it would be right for my left eye, but out of whack for my rt and so forth).

I'm sure there are folks in the same boat where their vision isn't as good as they think it is, and just for the sake of their vision should get their eyes checked.

I dodged the total blindness that comes w/glaucoma, by finding out I had it, when they couldn't stop it with drugs, they installed stints/little relief valves to lower the pressure and put the glaucoma to sleep in addition to correcting my vision.

It doesn't do any good drinking great champagne thru a dirty glass.

koshkin · Tuesday at 11:24 AM

Convex said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but you can blow that on just a collimator alone!?

Again your brain adjusts to however bad your vision becomes. In the month the between surgery for both eyes, I was utterly shocked comparing what I could see with what I previously thought wasn't that bad but could then see how it was almost fog coming thru my left eye after the surgery on my rt.

And to make matters worse, I had a differing amount of astigmatism so I was having more and more trouble setting up my focus (it would be right for my left eye, but out of whack for my rt and so forth).

I'm sure there are folks in the same boat where their vision isn't as good as they think it is, and just for the sake of their vision should get their eyes checked.

I dodged the total blindness that comes w/glaucoma, by finding out I had it, when they couldn't stop it with drugs, they installed stints/little relief valves to lower the pressure and put the glaucoma to sleep in addition to correcting my vision.

It doesn't do any good drinking great champagne thru a dirty glass.

A collimator can be a lot more than that depending on the performance you are looking for. For riflescopes, the collimator is not all that expensive since you do not need very large optics.

ILya

Convex · Tuesday at 12:20 PM

Yes... They're very specialized depending on function.

Years ago was looking in a catalog, one of cheapest collimators this outfit sold was 25 grand and up

Taylorbok · Tuesday at 1:00 PM

Convex said:
It doesn't do any good drinking great champagne thru a dirty glass.

.... Still gonna get me drunk

Convex · Tuesday at 1:18 PM

I guess that'll work, I love it LOL!!!

Long time ago a friend of my who's been a Rollei repair technician (who's already got a collimator he uses for still camera lenses) had been considering branching out into testing cine lenses so he was checking out something along the lines of this and after thinking seriously about it he didn't want to risk the cash outlay and eventually passed.

He felt like it was going to take a boatload of testing those types of optics for him to make his money back on the gear.

https://www.chrosziel.com/lens-testing-instruments-for-service-manufacturing-maintenance/

https://www.chrosziel.com/CamCollimator-CLC-2-platforms/C-LTBMK2-L#top

Actually all of this is in your backyard Koshkin and what you said about using precision test gear along w/the requisite training should be repeated ad nauseum to folks who think they can plop two red dot sights on the countertop at the local gunshop to conduct "tests".

koshkin · Tuesday at 1:40 PM

Convex said:
I guess that'll work, I love it LOL!!!

Long time ago a friend of my who's been a Rollei repair technician (who's already got a collimator he uses for still camera lenses) had been considering branching out into testing cine lenses so he was checking out something along the lines of this and after thinking seriously about it he didn't want to risk the cash outlay and eventually passed.

He felt like it was going to take a boatload of testing those types of optics for him to make his money back on the gear.

https://www.chrosziel.com/lens-testing-instruments-for-service-manufacturing-maintenance/

https://www.chrosziel.com/CamCollimator-CLC-2-platforms/C-LTBMK2-L#top

Actually all of this is in your backyard Koshkin.

These are relatively decent systems optimized for vis stuff. Fairly inexpensive by our standards and limited in scope. The software is done pretty well though. For all of these low volume systems, software is usually a bit quirky.

As far as my backyard goes... I live in Albuquerque. Not sure how any of this is anywhere near it.

ILya

Convex · Tuesday at 1:46 PM

Not backyard-location

Backyard-expertise

And of course this was going to be all he could afford if he decided to spring for it.

Having trouble using the site?

Subscribe to HideTV with code XMAS20 for 20% Off

Rifle Scopes Blinded, Randomized scope testing

Supporter

Supporter

Moderator

Old Salt

Sergeant of the Hide

Supporter

Supporter

Ham Fisted Gorilla

Nest-stirring pot-poker.

Supporter

Unreconstructed

Unreconstructed

Supporter

Dark Lord Of Optics

Old Salt

Sergeant of the Hide

Dark Lord Of Optics

Sergeant of the Hide

Private

Sergeant of the Hide

Dark Lord Of Optics

Sergeant of the Hide

Similar threads