What scope mounts would you like tested?

[ColtSeavers]

Jesus, that's an unexpected turn of events. I am sorry that lawyers are involved and that I do not know of any publications. This is very surprising to me after seeing so many other 'reviews' of products and makes me wonder how many lawsuits/much litigation they have faced or are facing.

I would like to thank you for going as far with this as you are legally willing to do so and wish you luck with finding a publication and/or lawyer(s) that can clear this up should you go that route.

[punkey71]

I have the results... I also have some letters from some lawyers.

To be honest I have been weighing the risk of releasing it. The process and science behind the testing is accurate, but as everyone knows just being sued to prove that is a very expensive process.

To keep it short, while some manufactures have been a true pleasure to work with during this process and were truly excited to see the results themselves so they can make improvements (two already have made updates and are sending prototypes to run again). Others have taken to litigation without even asking about the results, so that has led me to believe they already know some of their claims are not entirely what they make them out to be.

I have been thinking about trying to engage publications that would be willing to defend the results if it becomes messy and I reached out to one but was quickly turned away. I suspect it might have something to do with the full page ad the manufacture is currently running in their issues or this process has just made me cynical.

I'm actually pretty heartbroken because I considered one of the manufactures to be a "good guy" and it turns out they are one of the more aggressive ones.

In any case without going into details.

There is no detriment going light weight.
"Finger tight" RTZ is a farce.
A good RTZ with a tool less design is achievable.
Beefier cross bolts are important.

If anyone can provide a contact to a publication willing to stand up to the industry let me know...

What a shame. Thanks for your effort and I'm sorry some of the manufacturers have reacted this way.

I can draw some educated guesses from the info you've shared.

I'm happy I suggested the Aero as a lightweight option.

I'm also happy I recently gave some $$ to Larue when I decided I needed some more nice 2 stage triggers.

:-)

Thanks again.

[Digital_Damage]

Jesus, that's an unexpected turn of events. I am sorry that lawyers are involved and that I do not know of any publications. This is very surprising to me after seeing so many other 'reviews' of products and makes me wonder how many lawsuits/much litigation they have faced or are facing.

I would like to thank you for going as far with this as you are legally willing to do so and wish you luck with finding a publication and/or lawyer(s) that can clear this up should you go that route.

I knew there was going to be some pushback, but IMO it has been excessive.

I even spoke with one of the manufactures that has been positive to the testing and they stated it might not be worth releasing the data. Granted, they did have an issue during testing but they shared the drawings of a future release with me and it looks like the next revision will not only address the deficiency but go way beyond. That will make it In my opinion a must buy mount in the future.

I think that is a true sign of someone wanting to make a top product and not just fill their pockets. I was so impressed with the way they handled it I shared my actually identity with them and will be testing the next prototype soon.

[Coal Dragger]

Not sure what I would do in your position. Fact of the matter is that if your methods are repeatable, and applied the same way to each mount then you are simply reporting on your findings. This would be covered under the 1st Amendment, since you are not slandering anyone.

The legal threats are just that: theat to make you back off. They are betting that a scary letter from a lawyer, and potential legal costs will dissuade you from publishing your findings.

I don't know what your financial position is, but you could contact an attorney of your own perhaps one specializing in libel law where publishing is concerned. I suspect that if your data is solid, along with your methodology that a potential plaintiff would have no case.

In retaliation if I were you, I would post a photo of the nasty-gram you got from the lawyer threatening you on behalf of ........

See how they like that going viral, not much they can do about it either. Expose them for being shit heels, this is a PR and marketing strategy to use lawyers to protect their brand. Let everyone know who won't stand for their product being tested.

[Digital_Damage]

Not sure what I would do in your position. Fact of the matter is that if your methods are repeatable, and applied the same way to each mount then you are simply reporting on your findings. This would be covered under the 1st Amendment, since you are not slandering anyone.

The legal threats are just that: theat to make you back off. They are betting that a scary letter from a lawyer, and potential legal costs will dissuade you from publishing your findings.

I don't know what your financial position is, but you could contact an attorney of your own perhaps one specializing in libel law where publishing is concerned. I suspect that if your data is solid, along with your methodology that a potential plaintiff would have no case.

In retaliation if I were you, I would post a photo of the nasty-gram you got from the lawyer threatening you on behalf of ........

See how they like that going viral, not much they can do about it either. Expose them for being shit heels, this is a PR and marketing strategy to use lawyers to protect their brand. Let everyone know who won't stand for their product being tested.

They certainly have no case, but at the end of the day anyone can be bring a suit for anything and the cost of proving they have no case is what is at issue. Even if it is only a few thousand dollars, it is still a few thousand dollars I would prefer not to part with. From discussions with others this is not the first time this has happened either. It is a typical tactic many in the industry employ to control information about their products. There is also some extenuating circumstances, while this was done on my own time I did use procedures and equipment that my employer has established for testing. I did get prior authorization, but if they got dragged into it my employment may become a liability they don't want to deal with since they rely on these manufactures cooperating with them during .gov commissioned testing.

I'm not that well off that blowing up my livelihood is a risk I'm able to take at this juncture.

[P2000]

What a mess. That is a shame. I wouldn't release the results. However, releasing the lawyer letter is an interesting option. Not sure if that would get you in trouble or not. If I knew which companies lawyered up over this test I would place them on my "do not buy" list.