Thread: Are we on the wrong 'No.1" criteria when scope buying?

I see a lot of self-tests done in this forum for scopes comparing their 'last light' image clarity...you know 'which scope could make out the tree closest to darkness'.

But I see bugger all scope tracking tests on this forum....why?

All that "glass, lenses, coatings, etc,"... the whole scope environment is purposefully shrouded in mystery and yet people claim to know, and be able to identify, 'the best' optic quality.

However, at a certain lens quality point I just can't tell the difference in optical clarity between scopes...and really is the last 5mins of light that important?

I can, however, reliably test the scope's mechanical adjustments at the range to see its tracking accuracy very objectively.

I think that in this age of laser rangefinders and dialing, the mechanical aspects of a scope are more important than the optical quality. It’s no use having great clarity in a scope if it doesn’t track correctly. However, it seems that people judge a scope (and one pays for), the optical clarity.
But a rifle scope without good turrets is just a telescope...therefore accurate turret dialing, I suggest, should be the most important and therefore most tested for aspect of a scope.
More scope tracking tests anyone?