As usual people have their own favourites and will always try to push them on others. That's effectively what I'm doing! I think that's healthy and it's good to give your own reasons why you use a particular item so that others to whom it may seem
to appeal can try it out and form a conclusion of their own.
In my case it was Chris Cundey who did just that and introduced me to the SR6 a few years ago, and he did pretty well with it I think you'll agree. For me personally
, I've looked through Bushnells, Falcons, Leupolds, MTCs and haven't so far been convinced that the optics, reticle or dof is sufficiently better for me
so that I'd swap from the SR6. Maybe it's my eyes, maybe it's just that I'm used to it now.
I do have a couple of standard reticle Bushnells and a Simmons and the optics are very good, just not for HFT that's all.
With a few £1000+ rifles I'd have no qualms in spending the same on a scope and was looking forward to buying a Mk4 Leupold last year in the USA when the dollar/pound rate was excellent making it around £600. When I tried it at Outdoor World however I really couldn't personally
see what all the fuss was about. It just didn't float my boat at all!
Pete is right that the only proper way to test a scope is to shoot a full course, which is what Jamie and I did with the new SR6 prototypes when invited to by Deben who knew I was an SR6 'fan'. But to spend £1000 to do such a practical test isn't realistic so most have to rely on a static 'look through' unless you have a very good friend prepared you lend you one.
My opinion may change. For years 'meccano' guns didn't appeal to me and now I shoot one. But the thing we should remember is everyone has their OWN opinion whether borne out of practical experience, particular features, affordability, or scope 'snobbery', and they will tend to stick to it. I'll always look through a new scope, in the quest for perfection and to keep an open mind.
Others who don't may one day be missing a trick.