Geez, you guys ask for evidence, he gives it so you call him a liar? I'd certainly have something a bit more solid before calling out a guy with a resume like that.
I have never called anyone a liar, I said the test was screwed and actually showed the Leupold was working properly.
As far as a resume, I sure have not seen anything. I do know both Rick and I post under our own names and are fairly well known quantities in certain circles. (Me for being a knucklehead and Rick for being a good LR shooter)
Originally Posted by JonA
For the center of that group to be 1.2" above center the bottom hole would need to be actually hitting the top of the bull. It's clearly higher than that. And it's clearly to the right. I'm all for more comprehensive scope testing but when one shows such obvious flaws in an easy test, a more comprehensive test is only going to bring more bad news, not exoneration. And assuming he doesn't know what he's doing would be to assume the first two targets were purely coincidental. Targets like that don't happen by accident.
It helps if I explain one more time that for the bullets to have hit the upper bull the Leupold would have needed to be adjusted 24 MOA. Instead he adjusted the Leupold 25.25 MOA for some unknown reason (coincidentally that is how many Inches Per Hundred Yards would equal 7 Mils) . This of course caused the upper 2 shot group to print high.
There are only 2 shots in the upper group. The gun is a slightly over a 2 MOA rifle. Pretty clear that the optic moved well within the resolution of the �test�.
I have offered to shoot that optic on a rifle that shoots a little better but am waiting for a response.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
