I have tried to stay out of this knowing it would be a popcorn show, but finally decided to read through the pages of content (which was somewhat agonizing) and hear arguments from both sides, I do not consider myself a judge, but think of myself as more a member of the jury. So what's on trial here - whether or not a drop test performed by individual shooters in uncontrolled situations could give a fair analysis of the failure rate to return to zero (RTZ) of any given scope.
I am not here to praise or criticize Formidallacious' (yes, that was a joke based on his user name) and his detailed process for which to perform a durability test; however, I would like to say that I have been thinking of something similar for a number of years now - how can I perform a test that would be repeatable and rule out as many anomalies as possible to determine if a scope can hold zero after being banged around a bit. The reason I have not attempted to publish some test results is due to the responses I have seen written here - the scrutiny from the community would be overwhelming and if I make a mistake (or two or three) will that skew results and give a false impression toward any given brand/model. I can appreciate what "Formid" has attempted to do - follow the scientific method to come to conclusions that are testable and repeatable.
According to Cornell the Scientific Method is defined as:
In the case of a scope's ability to hold zero, here are my interpretations of the above process:
I think this is a fair assessment; however, I think the incongruency comes not from the method itself but from the fact there are so many other factors that could affect outcomes. Think of it like this, many of you have probably seen the movie Jurassic Park with Jeff Goldblum, there is a scene where Goldblum's character is explaining chaos theory:
- Observation - we are aware that some scopes may be more prone to lose zero than others. A scope that loses zero after minor impact can be a major factor on a hunt, in a competition, etc.
- Question - how can we determine a repeatable method by which to test a scopes ability to RTZ after impact.
- Hypothesis - if we use a rifle, a picatinny rail, a set of rings and torque everything exactly the same, can we drop said rifle, mount and scope combo from X number of inches onto a material of known thickness sitting on a substrate of earth or snow, etc. and get repeatable results from different scopes?
- Experiment - write out detailed instructions on how to perform a test and expect others to be able to repeat the test exactly as detailed. Results can then be reliably shared on internet forums.
In essence, chaos theory tries to explain "underlying patterns and deterministic laws highly sensitive to initial conditions in dynamical systems that were thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities". Yes, we can argue till the cows come home whether or not everything was exactly configured the same way, but no one can ever know that because we are not dealing with perfect systems here. If a tree fell over in Siberia right before a drop test could that affect the outcome? (Yes, I'm being somewhat cynical here but hopefully you get the point - how can we rule out all abnormalities?) Therefore, there must be tolerance levels and assumptions and, of course, that is what many have tried to ascertain in preceding posts, some with logic and some with... well, not so much logicbut this is an internet forum after all and we are going to get the occasional troll or Fudd (unfortunately, there seems to be much more of this on the Hide over the past couple years than there used to be).
In some posts the goal and character of "Formid" has come into question with many asking, "who is this guy". That is fair, but in all honesty, "who are any of us?", unless you personally know someone from the Hide it's hard to determine motivation. Could "Formid" be motivated by intense hatred for Vortex? Could "Formid" be a shill for NF? Could "Formid" be honest and genuinely want to help the community? Could "Formid" be doing the best he can to provide a repeatable method for the community? I think the answer to all these questions "could" be yes, but only "Formid" himself knows for certain and for many observers the true answer may never be known. Sometimes people are not who they said they are because they are messed up in the head or have ulterior motives or have extreme bias. But to the point of "who", outside of a dozen or so people on the Hide who I routinely talk with, how many people actually know me? I have never shared "too much" information about me because, frankly, I do not want that information on Al Gore's world wide web - information that could be used against me at some point and if you think I'm joking just look at what Big Tech has done to people since 2020. So I do not do social media, I do not do YouTube or Tik-toc-toe or any other video platform because I value my privacy. It's entirely possible "Formid" feels the same way or has a day job that could be in jeopardy if he suddenly became a big internet gun enthusiast; I don't blame anyone on this forum wanting a bit of anonymity - it sucks yes, after all we have a constitutional right to own firearms, but the Left is trying its best to make them more and more taboo and evil and horrible, so much misinformation (real misinformation put forth by the Left's propaganda machine, not the "fake" misinformation put out by Big Tech and politics).
Bias is often brought up in these conversations and I will often get a PM from someone saying "I appreciate your unbiased reviews" and I always try to point out - "I have bias as well, everybody does, but I try my best to share what my bias' are so you can make informed decisions on my conclusions". For example, I am not a huge fan of the Schmidt and Bender PM II 5-25 design mostly because it tunnels and has very poor FOV at 5x; however, this is an excellent scope optically and mechanically that has proven itself for many years so just because I don't like it for particular reasons doesn't mean it won't perform well or won't be someone else's favorite. I have heavy bias toward certain reticles, before NF came out with Mil-C and then Mil-XT I was not a fan, does that mean Nightforce scopes aren't any good, certainly not, reticle choice is personal preference but dang, it took NF long enough to come out with a .2 mil hash reticle! I have an addiction to ultra short design scopes and the industry has certainly gravitated in this direction with some designs; however, the more I test these the more I find compromises compared to their longer brothers and as such I'm beginning to lean back toward more traditional designs - so even someone's bias can change based on observation and differing needs.
Juror #3 (that's me), what is your verdict? - I think in the end, there are just too many variables to overcome and give conclusive, repeatable and accurate results, therefore, I take the conclusions that "Formid" has provided (or anyone else using similar methodology, including my own) with a grain of salt. Is it possible the Vortex LHT 4.5-22 could have a higher rate of failure to RTZ after impact given "similar" situations as compared with other scopes? Yes, it is possible, but inconclusive. The only "conclusive" outcome is to confirm your zero by actually shooting the rifle.
Most of you who've been around long enough may recognize my username, I changed it last year (see aforementioned Big Tech and privacy issues) but if you're savvy enough I'm sure you can figure it out, I've been on the Hide since 2012 and have been doing reviews since about that time to satisfy my own curiosity with the quality of scopes especially in low light situations. Many have benefited from my reviews and some have offered up constructive criticism which I've used to further my knowledge over the years. Not everyone agrees with my conclusions or point of view and as I am human (last I checked) I am prone to mistakes and do my best to learn from those mistakes and improve upon my process the next time around. Because I am not employed by anyone in the industry, I have to fund this myself (will some companies send me scopes to review, yes they will; however, I explain I will always be honest with what I find in those situations) but most of the time I am buying a scope with my own money out of my own curiosity to see how it performs in as best of a repeatable methodology as I'm able to perform at this time.
I do not personally know "Formid" nor have I ever spoken to him, nor did I even know of his existence prior to this thread, but his efforts whether you trust them or not (or trust him or not), have gained a certain following and are being discussed in multiple forums. Regardless of his motivations, I can appreciate that he wanted to try to come up with a methodology to help other shooters ascertain how well their scope will hold up to some abuse whether intentional or accidental. However, some tests can give false positives especially if all the variables aren't addressed exactly the same way and those results could sway opinion for a given model as well as brand that is hard to overcome regardless of the truth, so there is "danger" to promoting a particular method that is incapable of drawing conclusive results. In the end, I think the moral of the story is this, if your rig takes a spill or encounters some type of significant impact it would be best to confirm zero, doesn't matter if you have a Vortex LHT, Nightforce ATACR, ZCO, Hensoldt or (insert favorite brand here). If you're on the hunt of a lifetime, try to confirm zero, somehow, somewhere safe. If your rig is always losing zero every time you go out whether it falls on its side from a bipod onto your soft mat or taps up against a branch, etc. then something is wrong and you should check everything, if you have another scope, try that one, does the same thing happen, if not you might have reason for a warranty check but don't rule out other factors like, poor bedding, bolts not torqued to spec, torque wrench no longer in spec, rings out of spec, you're an idiot (I've done stupid things too) and so forth.
In summary, while I appreciate what I think "Formid" was trying to do, I am still on the fence with regard to the efficacy of the methodology and intended desire for the betterment of the industry both at the manufacturer and consumer level. As a former professional photographer I saw this time and time again with regard to the brand wars between Canon and Nikon, each photographer trying to prove why their brand of choice was the "better" system and coming up with different methods to test this and that. I've always felt a professional is capable of taking whatever they are given, understand its limitations and use it to the best advantage given those limitations. Assuming a particular scope has a high failure rate for RTZ is as bad as assuming another one with a low failure rate will always RTZ given a number of uncontrolled variables at play, maybe I'm wrong and I'm sure there will be a number of responses from people offended at some comment made, others will agree and support my point of view and others will not even care because "who the heck am I anyway"
That's a solid and fair summary.
It's no secret that I'm very critical of the guy and his testing methods.
I don't think its fair for you to assume that the Hide would tear into you for conducting something similar given your credibility and record of open-mindedness.
It's totally fine if a guy wants anonymity, however all we the readers are left with is the persons history on a given forum.
I've said it before but Formuliciuos is one of the most over opinionated and closed minded individuals that I've ever seen touted as an internet expert.
The guy has to interject on dang near every thread out there, and assert himself as the undisputed expert.
Often times he makes false and outlandish statements, and is obviously very needled when people question him.
People on RS, and this forum are shredded when they question his methods, which never bodes well.
Point being while the test certainly has some good merits, it's far from perfect and would be better received from a more trusted source that repeated a well designed test many times over to develop meaningful data.
