One thing that seems to have been forgotten in this whole discussion is that the so called figures being used are based on piers without gussets and more importantly, there is no mention of the hundred variables that could affect the test results.
Variable such as scope tube movement, a mount that is slightly loose or of inferior quality and so on.
The reality is that the
figures are usleless if the tests were not done on piers independently in a test machine and free from any mount and, attachment to the ground or any other outside influence.
If the results have been gathered from piers attached to the ground and with scopes already on then there are so many variables that could have influenced and skewed the resultts it is not funny.
Surely no one can disagree with sound scientific analysis which it seems the figures some are using as gospel, were not derived from.
Since this thread has started I have looked through many scopes on different piers and noted no movement or deflection at all attributed to the pier on those scopes mounted on gusseted piers.
In fact even on the scopes that I viewed that were on un-gussetted piers the only movement came from inferior mounts and in most cases, scope vibration from the tube which died settled within a second of testing.
It is obvious that the figures eveyone is basing there assumptions on are not based on proper testing or on gussted piers either.
Too much emaphasis is being placed on pier peformance when it is clear for those who look closely, there are clearly other factors which could have skewed these results.
It is OK to question and I would think it is bad practice placing too much importance on partial reasearch and then trying to apply that as a standard.
