This is to nobody in particular and I'm uploading it here since folks who don't know about this particular test could find this informative.
I don't trust tests, and tests are only as good as the folks who conduct the tests. The irony is that it took the test I'm uploading here, to prove the failings of the drop tests that declared the firearm in question "drop safe".
It's impressive for somebody to beat a scope on a table vigorously, and then return it to zero, but of course there's the possibility that you break a scope into several pieces doing that, which you might've shot for the next 20 years w/it returning to zero, if you hadn't beaten it on the table.
No matter how thorough folks are, even scientists who're trained on how to do tests, can fuck up, and fuck up badly. Ask the Hubble telescope folks about checking their math B4 they shot Hubble into outer space.
Some folks are probably familiar w/the concept of "inertia discharge", I uploaded this as a GLARING example of folks who conducted tests declaring a gun drop safe which after they conducted their drop tests turned out NOT TO BE SAFE.
A test is trying to figure out how something is supposed to perform or to last as expected in a certain set of conditions, but it ain't the "end all"/"be all".
There was a boatload of vitriol/acrimony/shouting/personal attacks/insults that was going on about "inertia discharge" which then lost quite a bit a steam after folks watched this video.
B4 this video "spelled it out", some folks couldn't get their heads around the fact that a pistol could be dropped (traveling backwards-trigger first) and as it accelerated toward the floor, enough energy is dumped into the trigger enabling the trigger to continue to travel backwards as the pistol stops at the floor.
This video isn't about a scope, but it's relevant re the issue/validity of tests. It's ironic that a blind belief in one set of tests almost got some folks killed, until another test proved those tests wrong.
www.bing.com