# sight evals.



## BDOG6351 (Aug 16, 2004)

*sight*

thanks for the reply..


I appreciate all positive and especially negative reponses. It helps and improve our testing. 

Each product that these manafacturers submitted was consider their best hunting sight, again we had no decisions in what product to use for the test. Most people deem the pro II to be considered a 3D sight and others tend to consider it a hunting sight. I have some definite changes I am considering for the test in the future, we started to work with the manafacturers right after the test was complete. 

Please PM me anytime with comments all your feedback is helpful

thanks
Jon Teater


----------



## Naphtali (Oct 14, 2006)

You withdrew testing of any Trophy Ridge sight. Please explain why.

Have you any plans for subsequent sight evaluations that would include, among others, a Trophy Ridge sight?
***
I am particularly interested to read about USABILITY rather than specifications -- kind've the difference between reporting that a Porsche turbo 911 has a top speed of 175 mph (who cares?) versus reporting it can outrun any highway patrol car in the country. Features versus benefits.

Coming from a muzzle loading background, my sight of choice is a drop-down post. That is, I use an aperture rear sight (string peep w/o alignment tube) plus a post front that enters my sight picture from the top. My sight picture has significantly more information about what I'm aiming at than most multiple pin sights. Sides and bottom of sight window are clear. The farther away the target, the less intrusive is my sight.

Quantifying "apples and apples" -- such as evaluating like diameter pins for visual acuity -- may not evaluate what is important for choosing a sight. For example, sight #1 may have pin diameters .019- and .029-inch available. But sight #2 may have .039-inch pins available, but you didn't test them. 

Sight #2's .029-inch pins are shown to have less cable length than #1's, but were the .039-inch pins tested (ones that #1 does not offer), THESE pins would have been evaluated significantly higher than anything tested. Not only were they not tested, they were not mentioned.

This test is unfair on one level because you are no longer keeping the playing field uniform. From a slightly different perspective the "uniform playing field" is equally unfair because a manufacturer may have a product variation that is significantly superior to what was tested. Features versus benefits.

If I'm way out in the middle of nowhere, let me know.


----------



## BDOG6351 (Aug 16, 2004)

*sight*

thanks for the post....TR asked to be removed as stated in the report they had one product on the test, I asked them to be a part of the stabilizer evaluation but to no avail, the offer is open if I do another sight evaluation, if youd like to see their product I suggest giving them a call. The test had characteristics such as ease of use and adjustability mapped into the product. The comments on "Field of View" would definitely a plus and could be a major benefit to some, Im not sure that Id use this as a criterion for ranking but more of a intro to the product. Usability would be a definite plus if I was able to sample from a large focus group. The pricing was in the back of my mind and definitely something to consider- I had a price range set in my head for these products and sent those to the companies, what was submitted was based on that range. Some of the lower pricing products really did well, but I would like to break them up next year and have many more products on the test. testing the same size pins is a very good statement and one I have to agree with. I believe its only fair to go down that road in the future. I am not following some of your logic in respect to the features and benefits aspect and how to rate them, but the designs decision such as fiber length etc are not controlled and are considered benefits (I wouldnt state that the larger sized pins would produce more light as that isnt always the case) but do think that test more pin diameters is a great idea. The product develop receives major benefit on the test and are also mentioned in the innovate feature section. My testing is limited to assess those benefits of innovation to ease of use and adjustability (in this case). Its your own decision to decide whether it has value added. I beleive from performance perspective, these units have a limited amount to be tested, but I am all ears for opinions, I have a few major changes that would happen on the next one if time permits. Send me a PM anytime- I appreciate your comments

Jon


----------

