X2...I am interested in a more robust information pool as well. I havent seen one. Are you referring to the general consensus of people simply saying "my scope has held zero, I haven't had a problem"? If so, I'd say its not "information", let alone robust, until it is documented that all those scopes actually had a verifiable zero and that was quantifiably tracked over time with no adjustments--I see virtually zero shooters doing either so I discount anecdotal statements like this until it's shown visually. I want to SEE that it held zero, because I dont care who it is, I don't believe that 99% of the people saying so actually zero or track their zero well enough to say so. This is a big part of my personal reason why I give these eval's the benefit of any doubt...sure, I see some flaws in the methodology, the flaws may be relevant, they may not be--but what alternative is better?
FWIW, I'd point people to the maven 1.2 threads...there's 2 "official" drop-eval'd scopes, plus a solid handful (5 or 6?) of other people performing their own drop eval based on the same parameters, all of which passed. Not all the evaluated scopes have this--but several have at least a handful of separate confirmations. With a second production run just landing, I bet we see a few more as well. With that scope and a couple others that have eval'd well falling into the size, price and functionality requirements I have, I see no advantage to being a skeptic.
