Tracking test write up.

[robby denning]

Reading between the lines this is disappointing.

try not to disappoint yourself since you have no clue what’s going on in this situation.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

This site was built on integrity and honest reviews, not putting a thumb on the scale to benefit sponsors. If you've been around long enough you've probably seen a sponsor or two go their own way because they didn't appreciate the candid nature of a review or a less than stellar product criticism, but in my observation most of the sponsors appreciate constructive product assessment and that's why they are sponsors. Lots of sites cater to sponsor interests and post puff pieces for unworthy products and gloss over failings, but I've yet to see that here.

Live2hunt custom shelters

 

[MuleyFever]

I agree this is disappointing. That was a good snapshot of potential scope issues. As well as a good tutorial on how to test a scope for our own use.

I also agree that while small sample size often doesn't tell the whole story, if these scopes are in fact reliable what are the odds that you got the one of thousands that is sub par across so many brands and styles? Hopefully there isn't a sponsorship issue here trying to cover up valuable information.

Luke, I am not attempting to start any speculation but you put a lot of time into that testing and write up. It's possible you didn't cover every parameter but it's also likely that your methods were sufficient such that deviation from 100% repeatability and reliability would be detected. Perhaps having a third party review your data could clear up any doubts and the information could be restored? With the disclaimer about sample size and any other specifics you deem necessary.

I agree. The test was done to the best of your ability. Let the reader decide if it is worth following.

 

[Jimbob]

I like that he pulled something that he didn't feel confident in. It should not be up to the reader to determine if a review is worth listening to (although that is often the case). I would rather the reviewer be honest about their knowledge and info presented. Luke has a reputation and when he talks many listen, he should not tarnish that but putting something out there that he is not 100% confident in. Everyone should be careful what they post and it is nice to see Luke modeling that.

 

[HellsCanyon]

I texted Luke last week asking what happened to his thread and he told me he decided to pull it as he doesn't really consider himself an authority on anything LR yet and is still learning a lot. I respect his decision and it shows his integrity... even if I disagree with him and thought it good info

Mike

 

[Ryan Avery]

Luke did what he thought was right. I can't fault him for that.

Here is a real quick test of our integrity. Take a look at our picks. IF we were bought and paid for wouldn't you think we would have only sponsored gear listed??

Rokstaff and Moderator's Top Gear Picks for 2017 - Rokslide

If Robby and I were just in it for the money, we would have a whole bunch of BS sponsors...... Believe me; they ask every day!

 

[HellsCanyon]

Luke, did what he thought was right. I can't fault him for that.

Here is a real quick test of our integrity. Take a look at our picks. IF we were bought and paid for wouldn't you think we would have only sponsored gear listed??
Rokstaff and Moderator's Top Gear Picks for 2017 - Rokslide

If Robby and I were just in it for the money, we would have a whole bunch of BS sponsors...... Believe me; they ask every day!

Oh come on! Luke had suppressors as his top gear picks for 2017.... that’s gotta up his long range credentials at least 10X


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[luke moffat]

I like that he pulled something that he didn't feel confident in. It should not be up to the reader to determine if a review is worth listening to (although that is often the case). I would rather the reviewer be honest about their knowledge and info presented. Luke has a reputation and when he talks many listen, he should not tarnish that but putting something out there that he is not 100% confident in. Everyone should be careful what they post and it is nice to see Luke modeling that.

I feel 100% confident in my results and findings. However, I just don't want to speak out of turn as many have much more experience with these things. I may type up a more formal write up on it and maybe even include a couple more scope (Leupold CDS anyone ) and such, but for now I just pulled it. I have a few more scopes to test now and it'll be interesting to run those through some tracking tests as well as much for my personal knowledge when I start twisting them to see what errors I need to plug in than anything else, but will be willing to share that data as well.

 

[luke moffat]

I agree this is disappointing. That was a good snapshot of potential scope issues. As well as a good tutorial on how to test a scope for our own use.

I also agree that while small sample size often doesn't tell the whole story, if these scopes are in fact reliable what are the odds that you got the one of thousands that is sub par across so many brands and styles? Hopefully there isn't a sponsorship issue here trying to cover up valuable information.

Luke, I am not attempting to start any speculation but you put a lot of time into that testing and write up. It's possible you didn't cover every parameter but it's also likely that your methods were sufficient such that deviation from 100% repeatability and reliability would be detected. Perhaps having a third party review your data could clear up any doubts and the information could be restored? With the disclaimer about sample size and any other specifics you deem necessary.

Honestly, the testing part I was going to do regardless and am glad I did as it was a learning process and have a better idea how to do it more effiecently as I test scopes in the future. That said the write up itself didn't take nearly that long. I am pretty good in the WPM typing so it goes fast once I finally sit down to do it. As for now it would be impossible to restore unless Mr. Avery has some trick up his sleeve. I am far from an authority on anything long range, just a dork with access to a bunch of scopes to test out and see how the particular models I have work.

I don't see how there possibly could be a sponsorship issue as aside from Vortex I didn't test any scopes that were sponsors that I know of, but I am not up on the latest of that. That said the Vortex model I did test isn't exactly designed as a turret twister anyways so I think that is a non-issue.

It was certainly not my intention to cause so much drama and speculation. Merely, still willing to be always the student and learn much more than I give input or info.

 

[pyroducksx3]

What scope was the review on?

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

What scope was the review on?

There were a bunch

Live2hunt custom shelters

 

[Sled]

i was trying to search this here but coming up with nothing but this thread. was this similar info to the original thread?

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2014/08/13/tactical-scopes-mechanical-performance-part-1/

 

[tdhanses]

I’ve found this to be a good tracking test