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

[eyekahn]

This thread is gold.

Now we are debating if a Larue mount can repeat zero, when it obviously does in my case.

I also have removed the barrel from my WTO switch lug, removed suppressor from barrel, and removed optic from receiver in a Larue OBR mount. Installed it all again and returned to zero within .1 MRAD.

Was testing whether or not you could fit my entire rifle into a pelican 1520. Assemble it and it still retain its last zero.

 

[Ronws]

I have the perfect solution to question of how well does an Arken hold up if attached to a rifle that gets dropped. Put it on a rifle that is not such a problem to be dropped. Ergo, a cheapie that you don't care about.

You are welcome, internet. Yes, I do know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

The answer is 42.

 

[XP1K]

Rarely do you drop just the optic

Now send it on the gun!!! Put some weight behind that EP5

Sage dynamics style, throw it off the balcony!

 

[Darryle]

Handle is eyekahn/icon but I am not a content creator but hey watch my content.

OP, you should upload this to the #texasbear page

 

[Tx_Aggie]

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?

So you're saying that you'd rather have a mount that literally cuts gouges in your scope base over one that does the same thing without causing any damage? I guess maybe we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

And it seems like you would be interested in whether or not the scope will hold zero if dropped when attached to a rifle. It would be a logical follow up to what you've already done.

 

[kthomas]

This test doesn't provide any useful information, unless you are someone who constantly drops a scope when it's not attached to a rifle - and I don't know anyone that has this problem.

Every scope that is being used by us here is attached to a rifle. If the scope gets dropped, it will have a rifle attached to it - and with it a lot of extra mass and potential force.

 

[eyekahn]

Handle is eyekahn/icon but I am not a content creator but hey watch my content.

OP, you should upload this to the #texasbear page

Eyekahn was a rapper.

Yes! Please like, share, and subscribe to my big YouTube channel!!!!!

 

[hafejd30]

What’s being said is rarely do you worry about a scope dropped on its own. The weight of the rifle or you landing on top it for example would make a big difference

Like dropping a marshmallow from 10 ft vs dropping a marshmallow taped to a brick from 10 feet.

Or an automaker performing a vehicle crash test. But detaching the front bumper to do so

It be more realistic to attach the scope to a 4x4 or something similar in weight to a rifle and drop it from standing a position onto the optic.

 

[eyekahn]

What’s being said is rarely do you worry about a scope dropped on its own. The weight of the rifle or you landing on top it for example would make a big difference

Like dropping a marshmallow from 10 ft vs dropping a marshmallow taped to a brick from 10 feet.

Or an automaker performing a vehicle crash test. But detaching the front bumper to do so

It be more realistic to attach the scope to a 4x4 or something similar in weight to a rifle and drop it from standing a position onto the optic.

The one thing I am failing to understand is why everyone here seems to think if you drop a rifle it will ALWAYS land optic first.

 

[Islander]

The one thing I am failing to understand is why everyone here seems to think if you drop a rifle it will ALWAYS land optic first.

Because……..Murphy’s Law.

 

[hafejd30]

The one thing I am failing to understand is why everyone here seems to think if you drop a rifle it will ALWAYS land optic first.

It may or may not. But if your testing a optics ruggedness that’s what you would test for. Worst case scenario.

Shooting a match and it falls off a prop, you drop it while walking, trip and fall on the rifle while hunting etc

We’re saying it’s an optic that while performing it’s duty would always be attached to a rifle.

Your test would be more suited to a pair of binoculars or a rangefinder for example

 

[LuvDog]

The one thing I am failing to understand is why everyone here seems to think if you drop a rifle it will ALWAYS land optic first.

Have you never dropped buttered / peanut buttered toast?

 

[Mike Casselton]

I have the perfect solution to question of how well does an Arken hold up if attached to a rifle that gets dropped. Put it on a rifle that is not such a problem to be dropped. Ergo, a cheapie that you don't care about.

You are welcome, internet. Yes, I do know the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

The answer is 42.

Yeah, don't drop your Annie.

 

[Mike Casselton]

The one thing I am failing to understand is why everyone here seems to think if you drop a rifle it will ALWAYS land optic first.

You've clearly never dropped sunglasses or eyeglasses.

They ALWAYS land on the lenses.

 

[kthomas]

The one thing I am failing to understand is why everyone here seems to think if you drop a rifle it will ALWAYS land optic first.

How many times does a scope get dropped without a rifle attached?

 

[eyekahn]

There at been at least one documented case where an optic been dropped without a rifle attached...

When you dive into a pool or let's just say dive from a high surface. Why don't your legs land first? They are the heaviest appendage on your body. The optic is the heaviest thing attached to your rifle but it does not outweigh the rifle itself. Im fully aware that if your rifle is laying flat, that would be bolt handle up. And you dropped it from let's say over 1ft the optic would start to turn the rifle upside down.

If your rifle is dropped muzzle first with a 1.5lb suppressor attached to a 5lb barrel I would be hard pressed to believe the optic would hit the ground first.

Listen, I'm not arguing that a scope attached to a rifle doesn't create more force than just a scope or that it isn't 100% more likely to be attached to a rifle when it's dropped in the real world.

My argument is that impacting something that has internal mechanisms to see if the impact on the item affects the internal components is a way to test the rigidity of the internal components. I didn't flick it with my finger and say it's ready for combat.

There is always a way to test it with more force. Always.

Let's take the rockslide tests for example, they are extremely thorough. I did not see a total weight of the rifle dropped however.

Let's say the rifle and optic weighed 9lbs. It was dropped 3ft. That's 27ftlbs of energy.

I threw a 2lb optic let's say 11 ft vertically. Could be 10, could be 12, who knows! It's about 3ft lower than the 7ft height of the rafter, and the optic went as high as the rafter. So that's 22ftlbs of energy.

That's not useless. That is just 80% of the energy applied to the optic compared to attaching it to a 7lb rifle and dropping it optic down from 3ft. Which was a height proven to shift zeroes in the rockslide tests.

You run your car into a wall going 45mph. You could have ran it into the wall going 55mph, because that's the speed you are usually traveling. But you still applied the force to your car, just 80% of the force of going 55mph

That is all.

 

[Milf Dots]

OP, could you post some pics of the box/inserts of the company name & China factory location? thanks

 

[eyekahn]

OP, could you post some pics of the box/inserts of the company name & China factory location? thanks

Yea no problem. I'm sure it's right next to the one who produces the smart phone your typing this on.

But hang tight I'll go grab the box.

 

[Ronws]

There at been at least one documented case where an optic been dropped without a rifle attached...

When you dive into a pool or let's just say dive from a high surface. Why don't your legs land first? They are the heaviest appendage on your body. The optic is the heaviest thing attached to your rifle but it does not outweigh the rifle itself. Im fully aware that if your rifle is laying flat, that would be bolt handle up. And you dropped it from let's say over 1ft the optic would start to turn the rifle upside down.

If your rifle is dropped muzzle first with a 1.5lb suppressor attached to a 5lb barrel I would be hard pressed to believe the optic would hit the ground first.

Listen, I'm not arguing that a scope attached to a rifle doesn't create more force than just a scope or that it isn't 100% more likely to be attached to a rifle when it's dropped in the real world.

My argument is that impacting something that has internal mechanisms to see if the impact on the item affects the internal components is a way to test the rigidity of the internal components. I didn't flick it with my finger and say it's ready for combat.

There is always a way to test it with more force. Always.

Let's take the rockslide tests for example, they are extremely thorough. I did not see a total weight of the rifle dropped however.

Let's say the rifle and optic weighed 9lbs. It was dropped 3ft. That's 27ftlbs of energy.

I threw a 2lb optic let's say 11 ft vertically. Could be 10, could be 12, who knows! It's about 3ft lower than the 7ft height of the rafter, and the optic went as high as the rafter. So that's 22ftlbs of energy.

That's not useless. That is just 80% of the energy applied to the optic compared to attaching it to a 7lb rifle and dropping it optic down from 3ft. Which was a height proven to shift zeroes in the rockslide tests.

You run your car into a wall going 45mph. You could have ran it into the wall going 55mph, because that's the speed you are usually traveling. But you still applied the force to your car, just 80% of the force of going 55mph

That is all.

"actually"
9 lbs dropped 3 feet is 13.84 fps at impact with the ground.

Free Fall Calculator

Our free fall calculator can find the velocity of a falling object and the height it drops from.

www.omnicalculator.com

foot-pounds of energy comes out to be: 861.96 ft-pounds

Foot Pounds Of Energy Calculator

Calculate Foot Pounds of Energy effortlessly with our simple online calculator.

calculatorcorp.com

Don't worry, I have been smacked around, too, for statements reckless with numbers.

 

[eyekahn]

"actually"
9 lbs dropped 3 feet is 13.84 fps at impact with the ground.

Free Fall Calculator

Our free fall calculator can find the velocity of a falling object and the height it drops from.

www.omnicalculator.com

foot-pounds of energy comes out to be: 861.96 ft-pounds

Foot Pounds Of Energy Calculator

Calculate Foot Pounds of Energy effortlessly with our simple online calculator.

calculatorcorp.com

Don't worry, I have been smacked around, too, for statements reckless with numbers.

Ok, now take 2lbs dropped at 11ft times whatever velocity you think the scope was traveling when I threw it. I'm just going by the cave man FT/LBS calculation that was first introduced as why my "test" was stupid and meaningless.

OP, could you post some pics of the box/inserts of the company name & China factory location? thanks

Here you go. No joy on any inserts in the factory box on any of the info you were asking for in the owners manual.

Maybe email [email protected] and they can provide you with the information you are in need of.

 

[eyekahn]

"actually"
9 lbs dropped 3 feet is 13.84 fps at impact with the ground.

Free Fall Calculator

Our free fall calculator can find the velocity of a falling object and the height it drops from.

www.omnicalculator.com

foot-pounds of energy comes out to be: 861.96 ft-pounds

Foot Pounds Of Energy Calculator

Calculate Foot Pounds of Energy effortlessly with our simple online calculator.

calculatorcorp.com

Don't worry, I have been smacked around, too, for statements reckless with numbers.

Ok so 707 FT/LBS of energy. So still about 80% of the energy as dropping it 3ft attached to a typical bolt action rifle.

Meaningless and less meaningful are two entirely different things.

I do appreciate your contribution to the thread, that is not a sarcastic statement.

 

[eyekahn]

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.

No click bait intended. It was a true statement. Just interpreted poorly, or worded poorly on my part. Title has been edited.

 

[eyekahn]

"actually"
9 lbs dropped 3 feet is 13.84 fps at impact with the ground.

Free Fall Calculator

Our free fall calculator can find the velocity of a falling object and the height it drops from.

www.omnicalculator.com

foot-pounds of energy comes out to be: 861.96 ft-pounds

Foot Pounds Of Energy Calculator

Calculate Foot Pounds of Energy effortlessly with our simple online calculator.

calculatorcorp.com

Don't worry, I have been smacked around, too, for statements reckless with numbers.

Ok so 707 FT/LBS of energy. So still about 80% of the energy as dropping it 3ft attached to a typical bolt action rifle.

Meaningless and less meaningful are two entirely different things.

So you're saying that you'd rather have a mount that literally cuts gouges in your scope base over one that does the same thing without causing any damage? I guess maybe we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

And it seems like you would be interested in whether or not the scope will hold zero if dropped when attached to a rifle. It would be a logical follow up to what you've already done.

If it means it'll return to zero when thrown the way I threw it.

These small spots don't keep me up at night. If you want something to be tight, then a softer surface like cerakote or some ano might have to get dug into. No biggie.

 

[BuildingConceptsllc]

Scope testing is a thing. Done for some military scopes.

For a civillian-context, fairly consistent standard - and outcomes - see https://rokslide.com/forums/forums/rifle-scope-field-evaluations.133/

I'd rather the scope be thrown on the ground without a rifle like op did compared to this guy's tests....

 

[srt-4_uk]

If you want something to be tight, then a softer surface like cerakote or some ano might have to get dug into. No biggie.

If that's your rationale then you better crank them ring screws to 80 in-lbs. Who cares if it deforms the optic, you want it tight.

 

[hafejd30]

If that's your rationale then you better crank them ring screws to 80 in-lbs. Who cares if it deforms the optic, you want it tight.

You want to tighten until you just feel it start to strip or crush the tube. Then back off a 1/4 turn. That way you know shes right on the edge

 

[eyekahn]

If that's your rationale then you better crank them ring screws to 80 in-lbs. Who cares if it deforms the optic, you want it tight.

Wait you're not supposed to torque the rings to 25FT/LBS? It's IN/LBS????????? Is that why the bolt heads kept breaking? Damn it!

 

[eyekahn]

I'd rather the scope be thrown on the ground without a rifle like op did compared to this guy's tests....

BINGO! My man!

 

[Tx_Aggie]

If it means it'll return to zero when thrown the way I threw it.

These small spots don't keep me up at night. If you want something to be tight, then a softer surface like cerakote or some ano might have to get dug into. No biggie.

Yeah, like I said, a mount that has to damage the surface it interfaces with to hold & return to zero has a design problem.

But if you want to keep on thinking those gouges are a feature, not a bug, that's fine too.

 

[Ronws]

Ok, now take 2lbs dropped at 11ft times whatever velocity you think the scope was traveling when I threw it

To quote Arnold Schwartzenegger in the movie "Commando" when talking to the bad guy named Sully.

"What is importantt now is gravity."



It doesn't matter what the lateral velocity is. The scope is going to hit the ground at the same time as if you just dropped it in place.

So, the calculator takes one parameter, the mass in pounds. Gravitational constant is a given. And speed toward the ground is zero regardless of lateral motion.

I am not doubting that you meant well with dropping just the scope. My OCD is math and the ft-lbs was not adding up. So, I would not get hung up on the numbers, so much.

Put the scope on a bush beater or truck gun. Then chuck it.

Eric at IV8888 did just that in a realistic test with his golf cart.

Granted, he used a block of wood but it is closer to reality.

 

[eyekahn]

Yeah, like I said, a mount that has to damage the surface it interfaces with to hold & return to zero has a design problem.

But if you want to keep on thinking those gouges are a feature, not a bug, that's fine too.

That's the thing. I don't think about those gouges at all. The mount repeats zero. I like Larue mounts. No big deal.

This was a fun one. At least I did learn something about how to calculate energy.

 

[Tokay444]

Does this test make it any less chinesium?

 

[SanPatHogger]

Wait you're not supposed to torque the rings to 25FT/LBS? It's IN/LBS????????? Is that why the bolt heads kept breaking? Damn it!

I learned this the hard way. I think I was probably 14 or 15 years old. Tightening connecting rod bolts in a lawn mower engine...

 

[Darryle]

Eyekahn was a rapper.

Yes! Please like, share, and subscribe to my big YouTube channel!!!!!

OH, I don't listen to shitty music

 

[TheMammoth]

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.

Well I can agree that abusing your gear is the only way to know if it’s worth a fuck, but I disagree so strongly about Larue mounts that I have a hard time deciding if you’re just trolling or not haha.

The only Larue mount I ever had that was worth a moderate pile of hammered bird shit was one for an acog that moved the optic rearward. All the others, and I’ve had a few, seemed to cause some issue or another than non vertical rings didn’t cause (and oddly even an ADM mount also with split verticals didn’t.)

Sold them years ago, I’ll never go back.

Nice triggers tho.

 

[eyekahn]

Well I can agree that abusing your gear is the only way to know if it’s worth a fuck, but I disagree so strongly about Larue mounts that I have a hard time deciding if you’re just trolling or not haha.

The only Larue mount I ever had that was worth a moderate pile of hammered bird shit was one for an acog that moved the optic rearward. All the others, and I’ve had a few, seemed to cause some issue or another than non vertical rings didn’t cause (and oddly even an ADM mount also with split verticals didn’t.)

Sold them years ago, I’ll never go back.

Nice triggers tho.

Well I can agree that abusing your gear is the only way to know if it’s worth a fuck, but I disagree so strongly about Larue mounts that I have a hard time deciding if you’re just trolling or not haha.

The only Larue mount I ever had that was worth a moderate pile of hammered bird shit was one for an acog that moved the optic rearward. All the others, and I’ve had a few, seemed to cause some issue or another than non vertical rings didn’t cause (and oddly even an ADM mount also with split verticals didn’t.)

Sold them years ago, I’ll never go back.

Nice triggers tho.

No trolling, besides the obvious sarcastic comments aimed at people who are just being clowns.

You just saw proof that a Larue OBR mount will return to zero when taken off a rifle and put back on. It also secured the optic during an impact and a tumble.

OBR mounts do not use vertical rings.

 

[eyekahn]

OH, I don't listen to shitty music

All good man. You didn't know. No big deal.

 

[eyekahn]

I learned this the hard way. I think I was probably 14 or 15 years old. Tightening connecting rod bolts in a lawn mower engine...

This was sarcasm on my part. Just so you know.

 

[TheMammoth]

No trolling, besides the obvious sarcastic comments aimed at people who are just being clowns.

You just saw proof that a Larue OBR mount will return to zero when taken off a rifle and put back on. It also secured the optic during an impact and a tumble.

OBR mounts do not use vertical rings.

Yeah admittedly I have no experience with the OBR mounts. At least they offer a different option.

 

[supercorndogs]

How many times does a scope get dropped without a rifle attached?

Depends on your delivery people.

 

[eyekahn]

Yeah admittedly I have no experience with the OBR mounts. At least they offer a different option.

Yea I've never actually tested the repeatability with the 104 or the other vertical mounts. I know they will still hold minute of man out to 200 since I've taken the optic off and on before on a carbine but never shot a group after removing a vertical ring Larue, so I have no comment or opinion on those style mounts.

 

[kthomas]

Depends on your delivery people.

Very fair

 

[Hesperidins]

Y'all are being too hard on @eyekahn. It hasn't happened to me, but I'm sure there have been unruly scopes that just up and jumped off rifles. Not to mention they jump at a steep angle into tall grass to cushion the impact.

 

[BCP]

That's gotta be one of the dumbest scope tests I've ever seen

Lowlight used to blow them up with Tannerite to see if they held zero.

 

[supercorndogs]

I mean if I was going to toss a scope off something. It would be some chisesism like an Arkan.

 

[Hesperidins]

What is the significance or relevance of IMG_2995.jpeg that is attached to the original post?

 

[Hesperidins]

Now we are debating if a Larue mount can repeat zero, when it obviously does in my case.

One instance with one unit is not statistically significant. It does not create a trend or pattern. You can't say that it repeats... unless the test is repeated.

 

[Hesperidins]

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

The distance out does not matter. It's the distance down. For example, the scope could be thrown out one hundred feet, but if it only falls down one inch...

 

[eyekahn]

One instance with one unit is not statistically significant. It does not create a trend or pattern. You can't say that it repeats... unless the test is repeated.

This isn't the first time I have taken a Larue mount off this rifle and re attached and nothing happened. Also happened with an LT845 and LT840H

 

[eyekahn]

What is the significance or relevance of IMG_2995.jpeg that is attached to the original post?

Just context. I'm surprised no one has questioned the impacts at 900M since everything else has been questioned. Put that photo in so you could see the range and that I'm not on a 100m firing line.