The Shoot2hunt Podcast

[nubraskan]

Having a feel for the scope of things (pun intended) as a jumping off point vs needing absolutes where unnecessary is a thing.

It’s incredibly common to develop a methodology and then reference/link to that methodology rather than constantly regurgitating it.

The main complaint seems to be not posting up long reports on each scope versus stating it followed the referenced methodology. Well the reporter isn’t getting paid to do it and has previously walked folks through the details to the point most of the audience understands what’s going on. If a scope company doubts these FREE results they have been invited to show up in person to run through it with the caveat it will be filmed and posted, no company has followed through.

The entire basis of the “field evaluations” is to flush out if designs are suspect, not to document specific magnitudes, etc. The goal is to get some scope companies to pull their head out of their ass and start making designs that hold up to common field conditions.

If cars were known to loose alignment regularly hitting common pot holes and numerous folks were noticing it (but brainwashed to think it’s just the way it is), it wouldn’t take a massive test protocol and documentation to drive various cars down the same stretch of road at roughly the same speed to be able to report which ones weren’t in alignment anymore.

(Edit to add, all the while the car companies and their fans try and gas light drivers saying you should NEVER hit a pot hole or hard bump as if everyone drives on perfect roads in real life. No one wants to hit pot holes or hard bumps but anyone with an ounce of pragmatism knows it’s a reality in driving a car in the real world.)

Couldn't agree more. I also think a lot of people "choose" to not understand the methodology, or want to attack it specifically to reinforce their existing bias

 

[Q_Sertorius]

This may have already been answered somewhere in this long thread, but if someone wanted to help out with this by having a particular scope tested, how would they go about it? Donate a scope? Donate ammo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AZ_Hunter]

Sorry, but who is jvb, I don’t follow this stuff that closely

He’s a podcaster who jerks off to pics of Elmer Keith while pegging himself with 300 Ultramag rounds loaded with Barnes TSX.

 

[fwafwow]

This may have already been answered somewhere in this long thread, but if someone wanted to help out with this by having a particular scope tested, how would they go about it? Donate a scope? Donate ammo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Donating $ for ammo is through PayPal to [email protected] - noting "scope test" in the comments. To loan a scope for testing, reach out to @Ryan Avery to see if they already have one being tested, if they want and have time to test, etc.

 

[Reburn]

Donating $ for ammo is through PayPal to [email protected] - noting "scope test" in the comments. To loan a scope for testing, reach out to @Ryan Avery to see if they already have one being tested, if they want and have time to test, etc.

This may have already been answered somewhere in this long thread, but if someone wanted to help out with this by having a particular scope tested, how would they go about it? Donate a scope? Donate ammo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can also send money for a scope to be tested and let ryan procure the scope in lieu of shipping one to him.