CC:
I think most readers here understand the arithmetic involved in deriving percentages. The issue with your "static testing" results on any scope you opine on being presented as the end product of a scientific process is how can we, or even you, know your equipment and procedures are capable of producing a verifiable and repeatable outcome that measures a number as precise as +/- 1% of 25 moa?
For starters, there's the manner through which your equipment is secured to the static structure. A vigorous turret turn could easily cause enough movement in the c clamps themselves and/or in their connection points to the scope base and the structure to effectuate the appearance of much larger tracking errors than 1%. Likewise with atmospheric or man induced movements in the structure itself during the testing process. Further, there's variables within the scopes themselves that can mimic tracking errors if not accounted for during the testing process that will result in the appearance of greater than 1% tracking errors, while in point of fact, the scope itself is working as it should be.
Perhaps you have accounted for all identifiable variables and, by extension, your testing is valid and I just haven't yet come across the in depth explanations of your tests.
At any rate, this is not to denigrate the scopes in reference; I hope they turn out to be great and all one could ever hope for. The reason I checked out this thread in the first place is research for new purchases. To that end, like most people in the market for something new, I'd like read reports of use and testing that contribute to understanding of the subject matter in a substantive way.
Last edited by Starbuck; 09/26/20.
