Quoted:
Are you planning a summary page or a conclusions page?  This things as turned into a beast

Quoted:
Allow me to suggest posting the final results in a different thread.  I will be reading the thread, and all the responses, with great interest.  It is possible that other Staff and Mods may be doing so as well, possibly as your upcoming thread might generate some contentious discussion.  We'll see.

Quoted:
Allow me to suggest posting the final results in a different thread.  I will be reading the thread, and all the responses, with great interest.  It is possible that other Staff and Mods may be doing so as well, possibly as your upcoming thread might generate some contentious discussion.  We'll see.

Quoted:


"Contentious discussion"? Here?
Surely, you jest, sir!
I noticed that his first thread, where he first shared his observations, a few members seemed to feel that their manhood was threatened by what he observed and responded accordingly.
OP, did anyone, by chance, have one of the PA 30mm advanced (push button, CR123 battery)?
PA touted those as having a very low parallax error and I am curious how it fared in real world testing.

Nick

Quoted:
Soooooo when are you gonna post the results? I know you want everything perfect as far as your presentation is concerned but as long as the data is there let's see it ..... Realistically though where are we at? Another month? Week? Don't make this another DT MDR release

Quoted:


I 100% understand the impatience. But due to the attention this has- I don't want to put it out until it is complete and reviewed (especially by a lawyer so I don't run into the same issues Vuurwapen got into). I've posted above about the steps left.

- Currently, the report and data from the original test on 11 Mar 17 is complete.
- The draft of that portion is out for proofreading as we speak.
- I have already created sheets and summaries for the follow on tests that remote testers have submitted.
- I am waiting to add that to the report until I have all the sheets in (hoping by tomorrow).
- When that is done, I will add that summary to the report and then add a section comparing the independent tester data to the original test I conducted.
- At that point, a draft final will be sent out to all testers to ensure they concur with their data I have recorded, they will also be able to add comments from their observation.
- Once that is complete, a draft final will go out to some select professional in the industry for feedback and for them to add comments IF they wish to be identified.
- The final stage will be a legal review.
- Then the results will be posted.

Sorry, but it is what it is. Since claims agains my credibility have been made on this forum, I am ensuring that this is done properly and that there will be no mistakes made. I won't draw this out any more than is prudent or necessary.

Quoted:
Update?

Quoted:


I suggest you take your time and get it right.   Those who are impatient can . . . wait.  All good things are worth waiting for.

Quoted:
Is this going anywhere?

Quoted:


I'm not sure what your question is?

Quoted:


Previous incidents where data of a similar type was promised have resulted in letters from large corporation attorneys that quashed it's release and resulted in "I'm sorry, I cannot publish any data. This project is done."

I think the question is...you still doing the thing?

Quoted:I think the question is...you still doing the thing?

Quoted:



See....I didn't think the question was really that difficult.  JohnDough understood it.

So, the question is, after you made the allegations, do you have the follow through or are we done?  Clear enough?

Quoted:
I did my own mini test in the back yard on a spot on my fence. I expected to see parallax and I did but the direction of movement is what surprised me. Not only that but sometimes when I moved my head a certain direction the dot would move relative to the fence, then turn and move another direction despite not turning my head.

I did not do the full test procedure, just a quick check and absolutely saw what the OP is seeing.

Quoted:
I did my own mini test in the back yard on a spot on my fence. I expected to see parallax and I did but the direction of movement is what surprised me. Not only that but sometimes when I moved my head a certain direction the dot would move relative to the fence, then turn and move another direction despite not turning my head.

I did not do the full test procedure, just a quick check and absolutely saw what the OP is seeing.

Quoted:
Sorry yes, T1.

I have another one and 2 T2s and mepro RDS that I will test but won't get a chance to do that for a while.

Quoted:


Quick update guys-
- The proofreading/ copy editing for the first half of the report is almost complete
- I have started leaning forward and getting what I have into the hands of some numbers/ science type smart guys to get some feedback.
- The shell for the second half of the report, where all the follow on testing data will be compared to the original test is built.

Unfortunately- writing the second half has been delayed a few days. I had been waiting on 2 more entities to send me their data sheets. One of them (an LE tactical team) sent me their sheets yesterday, however their office scanner was of too low a resolution for me to legitimately see their diagrams to plot the end points. They are mailing them to me this morning, I expect them here by Thursday. The other entity, an Army SOF unit, is forward deployed and hasn't had a break to run the test yet (what they are doing is more important anyways). Since I have courses I'm teaching Wed-Sun, I'm going to wait until Monday to see if they get time. They run 3.0's and T-2's, and I was hoping to get a bit more data points on the T-2's as they have been testing well. After that, I'll just take what I have and finish the report.

Quoted:


Update-
- All of the follow on testing data is plugged into the spreadsheets and the summary is complete.
- My counterpart has sent the interactive website to some of his work associates to check data

Progress slowed a bit this week with me due to work/family. However, all of the hard parts are done. I just need to add the comparison tables, (which are complete) to the second half of the report and explain them. I'll keep working to get this done, as my desire to get this over with is as strong as the impatience of many of you. Thanks for the understanding.

Quoted:


I am glad you are taking the time to do proper due diligence.  Keep the good wor, I look forward to seeing the results!

Quoted:
People being impatient is just dumb.  I wouldn't worry about them.  You are doing a good thing to try and bring more data into the world and the impatient ones are probably the ones that don't really want to hear it with an open mind anyways....  Maybe.

Quoted:



Yep, I guess I'm a dummy for thinking the test would have been conducted and concluded before the conclusion was reached and the ban put in place.  My bad.

Quoted:

Testing and proving your theory on paper is different from what you have noticed and what you have seen for years.
I'll be patient and wait for the test to be published.

Quoted:



Right, and publishing the conclusions really should happen after the testing is completed....not before.


I saw the conclusions posted on another forum about a month ago.  I can't help but wonder why we are still waiting for the test results.


BTW, I'm already 99% sure I know what the test results will be....or should I say, what they have to be at this point due to all the attention that has been drawn to the conclusions.

Quoted:

Please note that this is a technical forum.
GDism doesn't fly here...
OP, please dedicate the time needed and don't rush things.

Nick

Quoted:



If this is a technical forum, then the proper method should be followed in order to minimize the perception that the procurement, inclusion/exclusion and interpretation of data has been skewed based on bias, especially when the ultimate conclusion has already been publically stated and is now the subject of some controversy.  Test first, then publish conclusions based on the results - - not the other way around.  


And what is GDism?

Quoted:


I don't think you have read this thread completely. The conclusions of this test have not been posted on any forums, anywhere.

Since the topic of this thread is the testing conditions and protocols- could you please explain how the procurement, analysis, or conclusions of this test are skewed by bias? Also- since you seem to think to know what the conclusions are- could you explain why the conclusions are and where you received the information for these conclusions? The results of the testings have been fairly close hold.

Quoted:



I don't think you read my posts completely.  Your conclusions, as in personal conclusions - - not the conclusion of the test.  

Here you go:

I do not make this decision lightly. I am not endorsed by any optics company, nor am I a product ambassador for any company. The Aimpoint T-1 did not exist when I was in Army Special Operations, so my first experience with them was as an instructor when they first started showing up in my courses over 3 years ago. The very first exposure I had to them was in the first Tactical Rifle course I taught. During the Tac Rifle course (which many think is more similar to precision rifle training, but I just call it fundamentals) I had a couple guys bring them. These students were excellent shooters and were easily laying sub-MOA groups at their zero distance, which was close to 50yds. During this training we will fire a 5-10 round group, focusing on fundamentals, then go downrange and analyze the group for possible fundamental errors, and then go back and fire another group throughout the day. However, when these shooters would fire consecutive groups, they would produce a significant Point of Impact (POI) shift. This shift was anywhere between ¼” and 2”. My immediate concern, of course, was to check the sight mount for loose mounts, barrel and muzzle treatment tightness, carbon buildup in the muzzle crown, ammo lot consistency, and a number of other factors. None of those possible errors were evident. After this issue persisted, I got down behind their rifle and sighted it towards a target. I immediately noticed that when positioning my head, the aiming dot moved. So, I grabbed a rifle vise, aimed it at the target and got completely behind the buttstock. I then carefully moved my head vertically up and down. The first student’s T-1 dot moved in a “C” that was significant enough at 50yds for the dot to leave the NRA 25yd bullseye at its apogee. I then checked the second student’s T-1 and his moved in a “U” pattern. Since then I have had many T-1’s turn up at courses. EVERY ONE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. Referencing the aiming dot to the front sight post mitigated the POI shift to some extent, but it never eliminated it. This inconsistency makes precisely zeroing the T-1 and troubleshooting other fundamental errors very difficult. In most situations, I prefer students to see the problem themselves and arrive at my conclusions without just having them take my word for it. However, I feel at this point that students coming to my Rifle Fundamentals course with a T-1 means that they are not getting the full value of the training they are paying for. I know that many in the industry are emotionally attached to all things Aimpoint and will vehemently deny that this problem exists. Interestingly, this non-existent problem was fixed with the T-2, which does not have this issue. I think that many of these people deny the issue because they never do precision grouping work with their T-1 out to the distances we do in the Tac Rifle Fundamentals course. And before you say “red dots aren’t for precision grouping”, the T-2 (and other Aimponts), EoTech, MRO, and other optics have no issues with this process. So, sorry if this triggers you (not really)- but, it is what it is. Bring your T-1 to any other course you want (you’ll hate it at the Night Vision Operator course as well- but I’ll allow it there), but not the Tactical Rifle Fundamentals course. I highly recommend dumping the T-1 if you have one, and getting a T-2 if you are an Aimpoint fan. Maybe sell the T-1 to someone who thinks it is the greatest optic ever.


Looks like a conclusion to me.  or Maybe you didn't write this?

Quoted:


I have explained that in the other thread. This test is not required for that statement I released, which was performance based.

Also- I think you have not read the topic or OP of this thread, you may have accidentally posted here thinking it was the other thread. This thread is not about my personal opinions.

If I am mistaken- feel free to answer the questions I posed to you in the previous post.

Quoted:


So you understand the test procedures?  You realize the volume of total and each unit used was reasonable and an outlier mitigation?  

There are two threads going on.  Take time to read both to understand what is happening.  Then wait for objective data to be reported.

ETA: you've posted 61 times in 12 years, 8 times in this thread.  You clearly have vested interest in the outcome.  Hold judgement before it's released.  

And GD'ism is General Discussion for non tech discussions

Quoted:



Actually, my concern really lies with the analysis and interpretation of the data.  Not so much with objectivity of the data being reported.


If my volume of posting is concerning to you, please rest easy.  I've already moved on from T-1s and Eotechs and have been slowly replacing them with T-2s - -hence my comment about not being concerned about his findings regarding T-1s.

Yes, I'd like to see the results, but I don't have a "vested interest" in the outcome.  I'm not an Aimpoint stockholder.

Quoted:
How do you account for people's heads moving (for example) unintentionally to the left and right when trying to observe up and down parallax shift?

It would be ideal to set up something like looking at the dot thru a slot in a fence, so they know they're not wobbling around as they crouch and raise on their wobbly human skeletons.  

Or maybe that was addressed and i missed it.

Most people are not capable of moving their eye up and down or left and right anything close to perfectly.

Quoted:



Actually, my concern really lies with the analysis and interpretation of the data.  Not so much with objectivity of the data being reported.


If my volume of posting is concerning to you, please rest easy.  I've already moved on from T-1s and Eotechs and have been slowly replacing them with T-2s - -hence my comment about not being concerned about his findings regarding T-1s.

Yes, I'd like to see the results, but I don't have a "vested interest" in the outcome.  I'm not an Aimpoint stockholder.

Quoted:
I believe @rdennis is concerned about what is known as confirmation bias.