"I'll not wave the BS flag at the idea of a scope being used to hammer tent stakes as I wasn't there and suspect neither was the poster who posted that."
Of course I wasn't there as it likely happened 10 years before I was born... I believe I read that information in one of the books I own about Carlos Hathcock, or the Marine Corps Sniper School... I'll research that and get back to you so you don't think i'm pulling this info out of my hind side...
"But even if it did happen it's a STUPID expectation for a scope to meet."
Why is that? I agree using a scope as a hammer is foolish when you likely have a hammer nearby, but I believe the test was performed to prove how well constructed the Unertl scopes were and that after all that abuse it still functioned as designed. Granted I would never own one myself as I have better ways to spend $2500.00... but if you lean your rifle against the tree or wall, and it falls over and hits the scope... do you trust your mueller or 3200 to hold zero? I know I don't trust my Bushnell to do that, and I adore mine... but they have thier limitations...
I have personally looked through most of these scopes (w/ the exception of a U.S. Optics) and find them all to be superior to Busnell, Nikon, Swift, Mueller, Tasco ... with Ziess and Nightforce being the clearest optics, and the Nightforce being the most well constructed. Granted the Ziess I shot through cost $800.00 and the Nightforce I shot throught cost 1500.00 w/ bases and rings.
My point was to argue against the claim that the 6500 series is the "ultimate in optics". Thats a big line for me to swallow, as if they were just that, why isn't the Military using them??? Sure Bushnell may have marketed them as "the ulimate in optics" but I feel that claim definately falls short in the grand scheme of things. That's like saying my chevy 1500 w/ the 4.8 is the ultimate in pickup trucks... It may get me from A to B but its sure not my dream truck