I didn't say I was
shooting rats on 5x...
you said that. I could have, if I wanted to, but I was observing. Watching the area, once I'd catch movement, I'd dial the mag up to 20x or better and whack the offending rodent. More FOV is better than less FOV in that situation. You say I don't need it. Maybe, but I damn sure like it!
It had
nothing to do with powering down due to lack of parallax, and
everything to do with being able to detect movement in a wide area. That's not academic, that's a real world benefit that I personally experienced, and on far more occasions than just that one. When someone is spending big money on an optic, it's not unreasonable for them to want to use it in as many situations as possible. Not everyone is in our position to buy the best scope available to suite a specific application. Most people are not, actually.
You say nobody complains about S&B... well I do. So do others. We learned that when we do, we get tarred and feathered, because we couldn't possibly be anything other than a dumbass if we have a different viewpoint than others.
Other scopes meet my needs better, but I don't mind. I don't expect a 10yr old design to compete with today's scopes. That's an unrealistic expectation if ever there was one, and while I know you don't have that expectation, it's clear many others do. The truth speaks for itself. If a scope has a smaller FOV than a competing scope...
THEN IT HAS A SMALLER FOV. That's the fact, and while people can say "you don't need that" all they want, it doesn't change the fact. It's up to the guy spending the money to decide if that's important to them or not. FOV is important to me on rifles that I kill things with. It's not very important on the 36x fixed scope I have on my smallbore bench rifle.
As for what "top shooters" use... that list of data as it pertains to brand is far too skewed by sponsorships and industry alliances to have any practical value. It's cool to check it out, and some of the things do have value. However, I've talked to many competition shooters that told me something like "I'd rather shoot with so-and-so's (insert piece of kit here), but they won't sponsor me so fuck em." Obviously that is not true in every situation, but I know it happens enough to make any brand correlations virtually invalid. Also, just because top competition shooters choose certain kit, doesn't mean Joe Bob needs or wants the same thing for shooting vermin off his porch.
Some scopes tunnel, some don't. Some have higher FOV than others. Some have thicker reticles. I have no problem being truthful about S&B's 5-25 strong points, as well as it's weak points. Truthful and unfiltered representation of product specs and capabilities should be everyone's goal. Then everyone gets to buy what they want, and avoid what they don't. I don't see this as a bad thing. Not everyone needs or wants the same thing.