As far as I am concerned, if you want to claim that a Zeiss or an S&B is a better rifle scope because you can see say .25 caliber bullet holes at 100 yds. where all I can see are .30 caliber and perhaps a few 7mm bullet holes, that's your call. I say the Leupold is better simply because of their first class rep for holding zero and their huge eye boxes. Both of which are far more practical aspects of rifle scope performance than some tiny bit of resolution ability. E
So, just to be clear, if, say, the S&B scope had the ability to track and hold zero as well as the Leupold, and the S&B had an eye box just as huge and forgiving as the Leupold, then, since, as you admit, it also has better resolution, one could objectively say that the S&B was better, right?
