Pretend a certain model of muzzleloader is designed so poorly that it misfires every tenth shot. Two guys own that model of muzzleloader, one who only shoots at deer (2 shots per year), and the other guy shoots his frequently in practice. Which guy do you think will be first to replace his ML with something else that actually works properly, and which guy will be bragging about his faulty muzzleloader on the Internet until the 5th year, when it finally misfires and he gets mad at it?
A ridiculous analogy.
Here's one more in line with the current debate.
Guy number 1 needs a hammer to drive regular size nails for the occasional household project. So he buys a regular claw hammer which serves him well for that purpose his whole life.
Guy number 2 needs a hammer to drive in railroad spikes but for some dumbass reason buys a regular claw hammer for that purpose as well. Well the claw hammer not being designed for that specific job naturally doesn't do very well and eventually the handle breaks. So Guy number 2 replaces it with a 12 pound sledge hammer which is obviously better for his specific need. But based on this experience Guy number 2 runs to the internet to loudly proclaim that all claw hammers suck donkey ass and that everyone not using a 12 pound sledge hammer for all hammering needs is a godD@*n sub imbecilic moron that doesn't know chit about hammers.
That about sums it up. A complete inability of one side of this debate to understand that different people have different needs in a scope and that certain scopes are designed for those different needs. It's really that simple.
