An old Weaver may have been mechanically tougher than the subject scope, the modern Leupold.
I wouldn't doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact that the line "the scope is used to kill game, so therefore it must work correctly" is simply a straw-man argument.
I watched him check zero on that rifle last fall. It was shooting about an inch to the left and put 3 shots in about a 1 1/4" group at 100. Not bad after falling 18 feet.
Agreed. I was addressing the EK and JOC comment.
EK and JOC's scopes obviously worked well enough.
Which is why I brought up the standards to which we hold our scopes. If EK's and JOC's scopes shifted an MOA or two from one season to the next, I doubt they'd notice or care. With today's manufacturing technology, the precision of today's rifles, laser RFs, quality bullets and other components, etc., most serious shooters hold their scopes to a much higher standard than could be reasonably expected 50-70 years ago. The ability to hit a 4 MOA target and kill game is not good enough for many of us. These days, there's no excuse for a scope company to make scopes that don't adjust and hold zero properly.
