Again, nice try RD. Let's see here. We have some brand new SS scopes being tested for SWFA. We have a few Leupolds of uncertain origin also being tested. So where is the level playing field ? You know, new scopes, same number, same testing procedures etc. Then we have comments made by the guy who didn't do the actual testing. He's reporting what others have said, according to him. Anybody know this guy ? First I've heard of him. But I have followed the testing done by guys like Barsness. He uses new scopes and puts them through the same tests on the same rifles. Unlike anybody who tests Chris Farris's scopes. That brings us to Chris, the scope salesman. I have no faith in anything he claims is better. Why ? Because when the Zeiss Conquest were new he claimed over and over how they were much better than Leupolds. But he never mentioned that Zeiss had alot of returns on them for the first few years. In short, he has a history of advocating something new to be alot better than the old standards like Leupold. When in fact, when tested on a level playing field, they had little to offer and some problems or drawbacks of their own. BTW, just because a hunting scope or a well used tactical scope doesn't track perfectly every time doesn't mean it is broken. It has to refuse to track to be broken. Not a once in a while imperfect adjustment. All scopes break down in time if used enough. Adjustments loose some of their perfect tracking ability, and they will all break down from recoil or being bounced around in the field. Nobody makes a scope that will last forever under hard use. E
