https://thermogears.com/best-i...ated-reticle-scopes/

I can't imagine anything worse than what I recently perused. It's not only incoherent but highly inaccurate as well. I get the impression this individual never even looked through a scope before. And while the review is supposed to be on illuminated scopes, the Swarovski Z3 listed is NOT even illuminated...geeez... Plus, I am sure Swaro would like to know that the scope allegedly tested has 12.5" of eye relief .

This sentence typifies the review: " You can gain the ability to see the target with the brightest light from the reticle by using an efficient illuminating objective."

I have largely given up on professional gun writers reviewing optics (and even guns).

The European reviews seem to be so much better than the us stuff.

Mike

Well, aside from not knowing what the words mean the reviewer obviously got into using a whole lot of them. Clearly they neither speak English as a first language nor even rudimentary rifle optics at any more than the 1st grade level. Kind of surreal bad review.

I read where he was describing reticles as “reticular “ . Seems as he has made up his own words too!
Not sure why so many people are compelled to post stuff on the internet when they are novices at best on the subject.

I couldn't get that site to work from this tablet my forum activity has been consigned to.

However, it was so full of advertising that you can bet it is all biased anyway - towards the brands that pay the most.

The Internet is full of idiots claiming to be experts.

You won’t believe what people send me from the Internet, and believe it as gospel!

The one who read that an extremely accurate rifle was built for the 9mm Parabelum for 1000 meters target shooting.

Or the video on YouTube of someone supposedly shooting a 223 Remington at 2600 meters and getting less than inch groups.

There seem to be a whole lot of people out there that know a lot more about these things than we do!