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?
That was never typed by Rick and you seem to understand that testing the optic is the first step with shooting/field use being the second. Much of this thread is a result of the OPs and others lack of experience reading trace and spotting impacts. The Elk video is a great test if someone has the basics of LR shooting. A few very vocal fail Bots and lots pass in the thread. If a LiL Fish or a Shrappy Baldwin or a Jackoffmt can't read trace and spot impacts watching HD video frame by frame why would anyone listen to their advice on optics. Always wrong but never in doubt posters is part of the 24HR CF.
JB:
To clear up confusion, RC did ask if I thought mounting a scope and then going out and shooting actually proved anything. This was followed by a question from RC of if I just trusted the manufacturer. Based on these statements, as a logical retort in the line of questioning, I asked the question you quoted.
Rick was already on record about that but maybe you missed his posts.
Point is that if a shooter has access to a static test setup it's smart to test the optic before spending rounds.
We test everything on a collimator for reticle level, adjustments in both increment and range, zoom and focus run out, and reticle substension before shooting.
Leupold Virtues.
When was the last time you saw a “straight” man with so many pics of other dudes on his phone?
And how many are <18????
Originally Posted by shrapnel
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/85899.jpg)
