I happen to like how BS tests his gear. What difference does it make if it's accumulated use or contrived situations that provide the information? It's more valuable information than you get from the guys who are quick to admonish BS and others who've tested and used equipment hard and subsequently experienced failures, as, by doing so, they're tacitly making it clear that they don't really know what the capabilities and limitations of the gear they are championing and recommending are. But then, this is exactly where most Leupold threads seem to end up: You get guys who complain about and deride both scopes that come with exposed turrets and those who actually expect to use them stating that Leupolds are great and that anyone who has arrived at a disparate conclusion can be easily dismissed as being too hard on gear, shooting too far, expecting too much from optics, hating to hate, being a paid troll from China, etc, etc.
Anyone familiar with equipment made and relied upon for hard use and life safety professions knows that RDT&E processes are testing things till failure centric. As Hunter S Thompson stated, "You don't know where the line is that you've gone too far until you're over it." So, too, it is with gear. You don't have to like the way BS presents his findings, but at least he knows what his equipment can do and what it can't.
Suck his ass if you want to the guy is a whack job.
