Thread: Who is interested in a pass-around for a Chinese scope?

Originally Posted by Pengy

I believe it is common practice to supply freeby products for field testing to magazines etc

It is much more complex than that and I am sure you know it.

1. The products are usually loaned, not gifted, to the media outlet (magazine, website, youtube channel, etc). At the end of the review, unless it was a T-shirt, it usually has to be returned back to the provider. Or else why dont we all just start an exotic car review mag and become instant millionaires by selling our free review cars?
2. Usually there are highly refined commercial contracts in place, addressing issues of risk, insurance, obligations, and disclosure.
3. Usually one has to be at least a medium heavy weight media to get free loan products for reviews (in other words, have proven circulation of your publication), and one needs to have ongoing relationships with the product providers. In fact, if you read firearm and related products review on the internet, most are done by people who pay their own hard earned cash for the product.

Now let's compare what we are doing here:
1. This is a New Zealand website. International traffic exists but not that big. We are not Rimfire Central, or Sniper's Hide, or Optics Talk.
2. We are not obligated to produce a 10 page comprehensive tech review that must include things like test results for resolving power when looking at an imatest chart at 300 meters, or light transmission percentage measurement, or precise maximum recoil tolerance, etc. I can tell you a website I have been going to for about 12 years which gets free loan gear to test. DPReview.com. See one of their latest review : https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m50. This is the level of professional review you may be expected to produce if you want to get a free loaner.
3. The pass-around that I am trying to put together is intended to be accessible to anyone who is interested in having a go. One does not have to be a highly published and respected tech journalist to participate. One does not even have to have any review experience or published anything or any technical knowledge of rifle scopes. Anyone who has these skills and want a go, great. Anyone who has none of these skills but just want to play and try out a new scope, can do too. And can do it for FREE.
4. No one has the time to draft, or can be bothered to go through, a lengthy and onerous contract to further refine each side's obligations. A $400 bond to have free play with for a $500 scope is the best balance that I can think of between many competing considerations such as collective convenience, individual responsibleness, equal access, and risk allocation.

This is all way too complicated and you are writing far too many words.

Why haven't you simply told the supplier that there are risks and that you won't be held liable, and asked him to agree to that. Why should the punters' here fund the risk? - there's more in it for the supplier (especially if the thing shapes up)?

Its a good idea in principle but I can't understand why its all so fussy.

Just get the thing and try it yourself and then lend it out to whoever you feel ok about. If they are forum members the risk of being outed if they breach your trust will keep them honest. Stick to established and reasonable term posters and you will be right. The worst that can happen is that you have to tell some chap in China that his 'scope broke. Tough cookies.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

It is much more complex than that and I am sure you know it.

1. The products are usually loaned, not gifted, to the media outlet (magazine, website, youtube channel, etc). At the end of the review, unless it was a T-shirt, it usually has to be returned back to the provider. Or else why dont we all just start an exotic car review mag and become instant millionaires by selling our free review cars?
2. Usually there are highly refined commercial contracts in place, addressing issues of risk, insurance, obligations, and disclosure.
3. Usually one has to be at least a medium heavy weight media to get free loan products for reviews (in other words, have proven circulation of your publication), and one needs to have ongoing relationships with the product providers. In fact, if you read firearm and related products review on the internet, most are done by people who pay their own hard earned cash for the product.

Now let's compare what we are doing here:
1. This is a New Zealand website. International traffic exists but not that big. We are not Rimfire Central, or Sniper's Hide, or Optics Talk.
2. We are not obligated to produce a 10 page comprehensive tech review that must include things like test results for resolving power when looking at an imatest chart at 300 meters, or light transmission percentage measurement, or precise maximum recoil tolerance, etc. I can tell you a website I have been going to for about 12 years which gets free loan gear to test. DPReview.com. See one of their latest review : https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m50. This is the level of professional review you may be expected to produce if you want to get a free loaner.
3. The pass-around that I am trying to put together is intended to be accessible to anyone who is interested in having a go. One does not have to be a highly published and respected tech journalist to participate. One does not even have to have any review experience or published anything or any technical knowledge of rifle scopes. Anyone who has these skills and want a go, great. Anyone who has none of these skills but just want to play and try out a new scope, can do too. And can do it for FREE.
4. No one has the time to draft, or can be bothered to go through, a lengthy and onerous contract to further refine each side's obligations. A $400 bond to have free play with for a $500 scope is the best balance that I can think of between many competing considerations such as collective convenience, individual responsibleness, equal access, and risk allocation.

As someone who is directly involved with this sort of thing, in the shooting/firearms industry, I can say that this is mostly correct but not quite as in-depth as you make it out.
We loan out firearms and optics to various online "personalities" and magazines etc to test or review. The same firearm would go to multiple different people or magazines as we generally only have one or two of any given optic or firearm for demo purposes. We do require them back.
The requirements that we place on the borrower are not so stringent, we do not go into great detail about what - if anything is expected. (assuming its not some kind of review that you pay for - but most are not, that creates a biased review or add.) Most personalities or magazines want to review your product or do a write up on it for the benefit of their magazine or page, so its a win-win all round. You pay for product advertisements but generally not reviews or write ups.
Everyone wants to be the first to get their hands on a new rifle or scope and review it in their magazine etc. We like to let them use it as they see fit and give impressions as to what they really think of the product that relate to how they would actually use it. We do not have a check list of points to be covered. Reviews should be genuine thoughts and not a check list, otherwise its an advertisement.
We do not have any lengthy contracts etc to over complicate things. We sign the item out, with details as to who / what its for, and a due date for return and that's about it. I think the crux of it is, in the vast majority of cases they go to people/ personalities who are established in the industry, so you know they are not going to disappear with your products.

Originally Posted by Tahr

This is all way too complicated and you are writing far too many words.

Why haven't you simply told the supplier that there are risks and that you won't be held liable, and asked him to agree to that. Why should the punters' here fund the risk? - there's more in it for the supplier (especially if the thing shapes up)?

Its a good idea in principle but I can't understand why its all so fussy.

Just get the thing and try it yourself and then lend it out to whoever you feel ok about. If they are forum members the risk of being outed if they breach your trust will keep them honest. Stick to established and reasonable term posters and you will be right. The worst that can happen is that you have to tell some chap in China that his 'scope broke. Tough cookies.

1. it is not fussy, it is simple. If interest, participate. If not interested, do not participate. I write all these words to address various issues not raised by me.

2. Each person only "fund the risk" against themselves. No one is asked to pay bond for someone else's action or omission. I plan to send to the next person a few photos and maybe even a quick video of the scope every time before I send out the actual scope. If the next person in line is convinced that the scope is in good condition (i.e. not already damaged by the previous person), then I send out the scope.

3. I already explained that the supplier does not mind not getting the scope back. But he wants, and I also want, as many people to have a free go as possible. that requires every person who is having a go to:
a. use it with care. b. treating it with care when transporting/posting/storing, c. send it back on time when their time is up. That is not going to happen if everyone gets it without putting up a bond. It will likely to get lost, damaged, or delayed in going to the next guy very quickly. That is why the pass-around in other forums are often very restrictive. Only the privileged few, like long term donating members and admins, get a go.

4. to address your point about why dont I just pass it to people who I think is "alright". Well I do not know anyone on this forum personally. Moreover and interestingly (and some may consider me cynical for saying so), if I needed proof that some people feel too entitled, I need look no further than this very thread.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

1. it is not fussy, it is simple. If interest, participate. If not interested, do not participate. I write all these words to address various issues not raised by me.

2. Each person only "fund the risk" against themselves. No one is asked to pay bond for someone else's action or omission. I plan to send to the next person a few photos and maybe even a quick video of the scope every time before I send out the actual scope. If the next person in line is convinced that the scope is in good condition (i.e. not already damaged by the previous person), then I send out the scope.

3. I already explained that the supplier does not mind not getting the scope back. But he wants, and I also want, as many people to have a free go as possible. that requires every person who is having a go to:
a. use it with care. b. treating it with care when transporting/posting/storing, c. send it back on time when their time is up. That is not going to happen if everyone gets it without putting up a bond. It will likely to get lost, damaged, or delayed in going to the next guy very quickly. That is why the pass-around in other forums are often very restrictive. Only the privileged few, like long term donating members and admins, get a go.

4. to address your point about why dont I just pass it to people who I think is "alright". Well I do not know anyone on this forum personally. Moreover and interestingly (and some may consider me cynical for saying so), if I needed proof that some people feel too entitled, I need look no further than this very thread.

1) You write like a lawyer.
2) I'm a simple person
3) But I understand how trust works, and you do not.

If you want this test to get off the ground I suggest you do your due diligence, and you take the risk on those who you deem fit.
I understand this is different as you are not a company, and the testers are merely people on this forum. But if this is important to you or the manufacturer, and you want it to get any traction then you need to be the one taking the risk.

I think you should approach established personalities, for example people with thousands of facebook followers and ask them to give it a no obligations test and post their feelings. You will get feedback from people who know what they are talking about, can influence others, and your risk is greatly reduced.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

1. it is not fussy, it is simple. If interest, participate. If not interested, do not participate. I write all these words to address various issues not raised by me.

2. Each person only "fund the risk" against themselves. No one is asked to pay bond for someone else's action or omission. I plan to send to the next person a few photos and maybe even a quick video of the scope every time before I send out the actual scope. If the next person in line is convinced that the scope is in good condition (i.e. not already damaged by the previous person), then I send out the scope.

3. I already explained that the supplier does not mind not getting the scope back. But he wants, and I also want, as many people to have a free go as possible. that requires every person who is having a go to:
a. use it with care. b. treating it with care when transporting/posting/storing, c. send it back on time when their time is up. That is not going to happen if everyone gets it without putting up a bond. It will likely to get lost, damaged, or delayed in going to the next guy very quickly. That is why the pass-around in other forums are often very restrictive. Only the privileged few, like long term donating members and admins, get a go.

4. to address your point about why dont I just pass it to people who I think is "alright". Well I do not know anyone on this forum personally. Moreover and interestingly (and some may consider me cynical for saying so), if I needed proof that some people feel too entitled, I need look no further than this very thread.

I have to agree. The forum chronographs always seem to be a "where is it? " topic on here.

I am not looking for any new optics as I am satisfied with what I have but I would happily participate if the bond was say half the value of the scope with a promise of you buy it if you break it thru negligence.

I would not want anyone who does not have the ability to mount a scope with the correct tooling to participate either.
You will get ring marks etc but maybe have a set torque limit for the rings.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Nah, what Ultimitsu is actually trying to do is put together the required material for his LAWS211 paper.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

1. it is not fussy, it is simple. If interest, participate. If not interested, do not participate. I write all these words to address various issues not raised by me.

2. Each person only "fund the risk" against themselves. No one is asked to pay bond for someone else's action or omission. I plan to send to the next person a few photos and maybe even a quick video of the scope every time before I send out the actual scope. If the next person in line is convinced that the scope is in good condition (i.e. not already damaged by the previous person), then I send out the scope.

3. I already explained that the supplier does not mind not getting the scope back. But he wants, and I also want, as many people to have a free go as possible. that requires every person who is having a go to:
a. use it with care. b. treating it with care when transporting/posting/storing, c. send it back on time when their time is up. That is not going to happen if everyone gets it without putting up a bond. It will likely to get lost, damaged, or delayed in going to the next guy very quickly. That is why the pass-around in other forums are often very restrictive. Only the privileged few, like long term donating members and admins, get a go.

4. to address your point about why dont I just pass it to people who I think is "alright". Well I do not know anyone on this forum personally. Moreover and interestingly (and some may consider me cynical for saying so), if I needed proof that some people feel too entitled, I need look no further than this very thread.

What if it gets damaged due to recoil? I'm asking this because 180 gn superformance is close to magnum performance. Say if the scopes been on a few 308's a couple of 270's etc befor I get it and the 30 06 is the straw that broke the camels back would I be out $400.00?

Originally Posted by Steve123

What if it gets damaged due to recoil? I'm asking this because 180 gn superformance is close to magnum performance. Say if the scopes been on a few 308's a couple of 270's etc befor I get it and the 30 06 is the straw that broke the camels back would I be out $400.00?

Short answer is, as I said in the very first post, it is not your problem. You will get your bond money back. Possible recoil damage is the very first thing I told the guy that may happen and he is cool with it. I believe people who put up bond money to try out a scope are not likely to use it on a calibre that we had all agreed to be avoid.

These factories make scopes for big brands like Vortex, Bushnell, Nikon, etc. They know the specs set out by these big brands and they know that against these specs the OEM scopes can withstand big calibres. Most centrefire scopes sold by big brands do not set limit on 300 win mag, rather, 50 cal. So when these factories make brand-less scopes or local (Chinese) branded scopes using the same technology and materials, the resulting scopes are probably also good enough for up to 50 cal. But, these factories have no real firearms to test, so no one can know for sure when they make scopes of their own design.

That is why, in the interest of letting everyone have a go I plan to set the limit at 300 win mag. That is where I am fairly confident it should survive (but hey if it still dies, write it in the review!). Also, people who shoot larger calibres will probably not be interested in a $500 2-16x scope anyway.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Short answer is, as I said in the very first post, it is not your problem. You will get your bond money back. Possible recoil damage is the very first thing I told the guy that may happen and he is cool with it. I believe people who put up bond money to try out a scope are not likely to use it on a calibre that we had all agreed to be avoid.

These factories make scopes for big brands like Vortex, Bushnell, Nikon, etc. They know the specs set out by these big brands and they know that against these specs the OEM scopes can withstand big calibres. Most centrefire scopes sold by big brands do not set limit on 300 win mag, rather, 50 cal. So when these factories make brand-less scopes or local (Chinese) branded scopes using the same technology and materials, the resulting scopes are probably also good enough for up to 50 cal. But, these factories have no real firearms to test, so no one can know for sure when they make scopes of their own design.

That is why, in the interest of letting everyone have a go I plan to set the limit at 300 win mag. That is where I am fairly confident it should survive (but hey if it still dies, write it in the review!). Also, people who shoot larger calibres will probably not be interested in a $500 2-16x scope anyway.

I'd be keen on testing with a 50.
Go to my give-a-lot page ( www.familieskeepingmebroke.com )and help make this happen.

Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Tahr

1) You write like a lawyer.
2) I'm a simple person
3) But I understand how trust works, and you do not.

1. I take that as a compliment
2. Nah, I think you are reasonable and intelligent. We simply see things differently.
3. Maybe, who knows. Much of my work involves getting people to pay up when they breach trust. But that can be extremely tedious and expensive.

Originally Posted by ChrisW

If you want this test to get off the ground I suggest you do your due diligence, and you take the risk on those who you deem fit.
I understand this is different as you are not a company, and the testers are merely people on this forum. But if this is important to you or the manufacturer, and you want it to get any traction then you need to be the one taking the risk.

I think you should approach established personalities, for example people with thousands of facebook followers and ask them to give it a no obligations test and post their feelings. You will get feedback from people who know what they are talking about, can influence others, and your risk is greatly reduced.

Chris, thanks for your comment. But I get nothing out of this other than a chance to play as well. I do not sell these scopes and do not plan to ever sell them. I am not the marketing guy for this brand and I got other things to do than due diligence and seek out the right person etc.

Equality is also part of my goal, that anyone who wants a go can have a go.

So if I am involved. This is what we do (but there are some suggestions in this thread that I think may be good ideas). This is meant to be a forum pass-around, not an advertising campaign.