Getting back on topic regarding drop tests, I took my hunting rifle to the range over the weekend. Shot a 3 round group at 100, then decided to drop test it a total of 4 times, two on the left side and two on the right side and test it at 100 yds again.
Note: I completely dissembled the rifle a few weeks ago, gave it a light cleaning, and installed a pic rail for my new Atlas Cal bipod. So forgive the one flyer in the first group. Once the first shot was out of the way it grouped exactly as I had left it.
Rifle is a Tikka T3, 300 wsm, Benchmark barrel (around a 2b contour or something, slimmer profile but a little thicker than Tikka Sporter barrels). Factory stock, mountain tactical rail, seekins rings, and scope is a Bushnell LRTS 4.5-18. I used blue loctite and a Wheeler fat wrench to install. Handload ammo used (4831sc, CCI 250 primers, Nosler brass 2x fired, 212 eldx jumped .095).
First 4 rounds out of the rifle when I arrived at the range (first flyer post rifle clean and disassembly highlighted):
Then I dropped it from 18” a total of 4 times. Two on each side. Rifle landed on the side each time. Pic of rifle and drop zone. Essentially just my shooting mat on top of snow. Snow was on the hard side. A good 1” of crust on top.
After the drop I shot the following 3 shot group:
After that I proceeded to hit the 500, 600, 800, and 1,000 yds targets several times. I noticed no shift post drop.
The caveat to all this is that I continue to be a nobody in the gun world, I am not telling you who I am, what I do for a living, will not provide an anal swab for dna tests, etc. Maybe instead of spending 45 mins writing about why one guy is trustworthy because he shows his face vs another who doesn’t want to post that info, spend some time testing your set up. Maybe dropping your gun to test zero retention doesn’t matter to you, that’s fine. But how is it that some people are shitting their shorts about what secret motive Form has up his sleeve when some dude tested his LHT on page 1 of this very thread and had similar loss of zero results?
Did I prove my LRTS is better than the LHT? No, I sampled one unit in a rudimentary fashion and had no discernible change pre vs post test. All it tells me is that it would appear my set up can handle an 18” drop on a padded mat over hard snow. Who knows, maybe I drop it on a rock while hunting from 6” and it shits the bed.
In the end I think these types of tests are in fact useful for some consumers. When it comes to what’s important for me in a scope, durability, zero retention, and repeatable dialing is paramount. I will gladly sacrifice some glass quality and lack of illumination if it means I can have my top 3 priorities met in a scope.
The only question I have left is that if some folks (Ilya included) claim that the drop test is flawed and you can make any scope fail with a similar test, tell us exactly why it’s flawed and prove to me you can make them all fail. I think debunking the test with valid data/results is much more interesting than these unsubstantiated claims and demands that anyone who posts negative test results must prove their identity. Maybe stick to actually testing scopes and show us some results. Yeah I get you can test various things in a lab with fancy equipment, so tell us how you test RTZ and durability after a little abuse? Telling me you hunted with a scope and it worked well doesn’t do much for me. I do happen to have 20 years of employment in a scientific field, so I’m partial to details regarding how you tested it and the subsequent results rather than conjecture.
I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re going to discount the results from this test, please detail an alternative test that you think proves a scopes capability to retain zero under some mild field-like use and I will test my scopes in that manner and post the results. Until then, it’s just a bunch of keyboard warriors debating asinine shit while their moms make them some meatloaf. At least that’s where I’m at with this. Less words, more details on tests and results. Thanks.
