Yeah, but the gunsmith tested it and said it was perfect. All I need to know.
To me, static testing is of dubious value. It's useful to potentially save some ammo and heart ache by seeing if a scope is worth mounting to your rig in the first place, but beyond that, what does it prove?
IME, twisting the dials while the scope is clamped to a static mount isn't what causes scopes to go wonky. How a scope handles recoil, bouncing around on rough roads, accidental falls and/or drops while carrying, etc, are what concerns me.
What it does is show you if the optic works in the first place before you mount it, saving you a lot of BS
Do you think that mounting a scope on your rifle, then going out and shooting it at various ranges tells you anything? How do you know when you dial 3.2 mils, that the scope actually moves the reticle 3.2 mils? How do you tell if your reticle subtentions are accurate?
I guess you just take the manufacturer’s word for it
🤡
RC:
I see the value of testing before mounting; I stated exactly that in the second sentence of my post.
And, yes, I do think that measuring poi vis a vis poa at various yardages and after dialing a bunch to and fro tells me what I need to know about how well my scope is built and how well it is doing it's job. Actually shooting also introduces recoil, drops, and rough rides on back roads into the testing process.
Do you trust that static testing tells you all you need to know about how well your scope is going to perform with other variables, or do you take it out to confirm by shooting?
Of course you shoot, but it’s nice to know any POA/POI problems you may encounter aren’t due to the scope.
I wouldn't go that far, as recoil and environmental factors can cause scopes to misbehave that seemed fine in a static fixture in a controlled climate. But static testing can be considered a first step in proving a scope's mechanical function and integrity, revealing any glaring issues before the shooting in real environments begins.
