Re: High End Tactical, Part IV: The Heavyweights
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gappa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought there was one article he wrote (he did several) that the scopes were loaners and he actually said he would have liked to mount them.. But maybe I read wrong.. </div></div>
In one of the articles, I did not check tracking on a scope that I borrowed from a friend since he told me that the tracking was good and he is a better shot than I am.
In another article, I did not re-test the turrets of the S&B since I thoroughly tested that same scope in a previous article.
Generally speaking though, you should try reading my articles before commenting on them. If you just skim over them (and they are long, so I would not blame you), perhaps you should not comment.
To the best of my knowledge, you are the only person in the universe who thinks that evaluating a scope without using it is the way to go.
ILya
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gappa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought there was one article he wrote (he did several) that the scopes were loaners and he actually said he would have liked to mount them.. But maybe I read wrong.. </div></div>
In one of the articles, I did not check tracking on a scope that I borrowed from a friend since he told me that the tracking was good and he is a better shot than I am.
In another article, I did not re-test the turrets of the S&B since I thoroughly tested that same scope in a previous article.
Generally speaking though, you should try reading my articles before commenting on them. If you just skim over them (and they are long, so I would not blame you), perhaps you should not comment.
To the best of my knowledge, you are the only person in the universe who thinks that evaluating a scope without using it is the way to go.
ILya