The following applies to all scope vendors we work with.
The most important thing we check is adjustment performance. Click value over the usable range and POI shift cover most of the sins. You can get into trouble using reticles when the scope has distortion. Obviously resolution is important and easy to measure on the right equipment, but I just don't think is relevant as NO manufacturer is telling a customer what it SHOULD be. So even if it's tested, can we say it should be rejected?
We feel that for a given product line, the Mfg has established a range of optical performance that is acceptable. Generally higher performance = higher cost, but not a hard rule. If you accept that product lines optical performance as a fair price/value scenario, then the only thing worth chasing is items affecting POI performance. Again, each Mfg has established a tolerance allowable because no system is perfect. If you are testing scopes by shooting (rather than in a lab scenario) then I would suggest that if you can measure a system failure then it is way out of MFG tolerance.
When evaluating the price/performance matrix, the parallax system sensitivity and performance is really hard to quantify, but a really subtle differentiator.
We are in an unprecedented era of product choice (rifle scopes). When you realize that only a few manufacturers are actually that, I think supply chain transparency and published performance standards will be the only way we can differentiate products as we move forward. When you understand how the sourcing world works in the realm of optics, the heated discussions of brand superiority seem pretty silly. The only thing that matters is what the brand promises to deliver. Until they stand up and put it on paper, then all that is left is "mine is better than yours".
