Why yes, as your statement is unclear. Please pay particular attention to the math of determining the precise change in POI (within .25�) with 2 shots from a 2 MOA rifle.
How about we call it a 5 MOA rifle? Then every scope you put on the thing passes the test with flying colors! If it prints a small group several inches away from where it is supposed to be, it�s still well within the 5 MOA precision of the rifle so the scope is fine! Another great Leupold!
Come on, John. It�s starting to get very used-car-salesman-ish in here.
You guys are acting as if that's the only Leupold he has ever seen. If you had actually read any of his posts you'd know he in no way jumped to a conclusion based upon one test of one scope. You wanted pictures, he gave them. Then you attack the pictures. Surprise, surprise.
if you notice I don�t get all huffy when someone calls me a liar. I just consider the source, an anonymous poster on the internet.
There�s nothing anonymous about me. I post under the same username on every board, and on every board have a link in the sig. Though I see the mods have deleted that on this board. They don�t like me. The truth hurts.
It�s restored in my profile.
I'm calling him a liar no more than he is calling JB or I a liar after we have posted plenty of tangible long range evidence that he evidently thinks resulted from imaginary dialing and imaginary shooting.
There�s a big difference. He was talking about his own experiences, not calling your shots BS. You aren�t talking about your own experiences, you�re saying his are BS. Big difference.
Does your bias let you see only his side as well?
No bias required. I simply thought yours and John�s pile-on of a good guy was without merit and uncalled for.
Mounted a Mark 4 6.5-20 LR/ERT M5A2 FF this year and use the prior scope as a back up. Finished 13th at the SHC and Runner Up at the Steel Safari.
So, you�re using a 34mm tube $2400 scope. So when people say they see lots of $300 hunting scopes with turrets on top have issues, they must be making things up because your 34mm Tube $2400 scope works well. Do you not see how that logic won�t fly with those people?
As an aside, does this mean there was not a single 30mm tube Leupold in the top 20 at the SH Cup this year? Not even one that you know of? What does that tell you?
with a Mark 4 8.5-25 LR/ERT FF. The one with MOA knobs and the TMR that prarie goat dislikes
OK, now this is a bit more relevant. So you have used one of their 30mm tube variables extensively (albeit a new and expensive one) and it performed perfectly. That�s great! Congratulations! We are all so very happy for you!
But it�s an example of one. By no stretch of reasonable logic does it disprove the hundreds others have seen first hand not perform perfectly.
How is all of this possible with a scope that some here say sucks, doesn't track, has inaccurate click values and a canted reticle?
Nobody said
YOUR particular scope has a canted reticle or does not track properly. Yet if you believe since your one example does not, this is some sort of proof the hundreds of scopes seen by others with these issues somehow don�t exist, you have a failure of logic.
Only the most twisted fan-boy type of logic can make such a leap.
They are statistical measures. It's not that complicated. Those who have dealt with hundreds or even thousands in civilian or military training schools, enough to see every brand fail, have a statistically significant population upon which to draw conclusions about statistical measures.
That's where the term
failure rate comes from. You are familiar with what the term "rate" means, correct? It describes a percentage of the population in which failures occur. A percentage. Even with a high failure rate, many examples in a population will no fall in the percentage in which failure occurs. Your example of one falls into this category. And if you passed grade school math, you'll understand that proves nothing about the overall population.
Much less, that the population has a failure rate of
ZERO. That's what you're trying to argue here. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
I won't say, "It's funny that...." the Leupold Hate Club give one of their own a pass to calling JB's character into question, because JonA might not like it, so I'll state it another way.
It's funny that the Leupold Haters ignore Formidilosus post calling JB's character into question and basically calls him a Liar, but when I question the integrity of Formid's "testing", I sure as heck am calling Formid' a Liar.
Yes, you did goad him into stooping to your level. Congratulations. I would put it differently, however. I would say the difference could also be described as differing standards, along with some good salesmanship.
For example, if I recall correctly, John advises his customers with his scopes to dial beyond their required dope, then to dial back down to the desired value.
To some that may be considered standard operating procedure.
To others that�s a crutch to cover for scopes that don�t track worth a damn.
In which camp do you fall?
I know
you couldn�t give me a scope which needed to be used in this manor in order to track accurately to shoot a match with or even live with casually because it would bother the crap out of me. And I�m not in a line of work where my life depends on the thing, you can just imagine the opinion of those who are.
