Originally Posted by hatracked

Not fair ? How so ? Would it be because the larger reticle scope is inherently more expensive? More expensive because there is more put into it so it PERFORMS better in low light? Ahhhh sorry friend in this case a few more duckies buys you actual performance in the field you can count on. How long and reliably you can count on it often times depends on the quality of the piece of equipment. Thats where you separate yourself from 79 dollar disposable scopes and start looking into high dollar optics. You see friend, not only do I want better in the field performance, but i expect it to continue to work . I got a junk drawer full of beater tasco/simon/bushnell scopes that havent lasted a lifetime. On the other hand I am the proud owner of three Leupolds that continue to serve me well year after year, regardless of travel weather, or light. I am not a 2000 dollar scope man myself, but I can assure you the difference between a 79 dollar wally world scope and a 600 dollar Leupold is light years.

Sorry I just can't sign onto your thinking on optics. The rest not a problem which I think is a pretty generous statement considering you have attacked numerous issues that get heavily debated often.